ST 

NEGATIVE 


NO 


91-80106-2 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  ---  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copynghted  material..^. 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  riaht  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its^udgemient,  fulffllment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copvrisht  law. 


AUTHOR: 


DYER,  THOMAS  HENRY 


TITLE: 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS 
OF  ROME 

PLACE: 

LONDON 

DATE: 

1868 


c:o ! . [jhim A  \ : Ni  1 V i ■: K-;ni'  1 115 r .\ k i r^; 

IM^ESEHVATION  DL-PARTMHNT 
JlllllJQGEAl!iiiC  \I i  C  ROFORM  TARHFT 


Master  Negalive  U 


-_^L'i?JP_(^j_ 


Origiiiai  Mait^riai  as  I'ilnied  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


I 


;874*01 
iD98 


Dyer,  Thomas  Henry,  1804-1888. 

The  history  of  the  kings  of  "Rome.  "^.Vifli  a  prefaforr 
dissertation  on  its  sources  and  evidence.  By  Tliottias 
Henry  Dyer  ...    London,  Bell  and  Dald\ ,  l^^f  h, 

cxxxv,440p.    ly-.    Philadelphia,   Lippincott. 


1.  Rome — Hist. — Kings,  b.  c.  753-510. 

I,  4-37251 

Library  of  Congress  — ^      DG233.D9 

ixi'btrictiuiis  on  Use: 

TECHMC aTmICROFORM  DATA 

FTl.N!     SIZE:    'l£_*^_'n^  __  REDUCTION     RATIO:  H    X 

IMAGE  IT. ACl-MENT:    lA   @     IB     IIB  

DATE      FIEMED:,,.^_.__^_^lj_^  I INEIiAES >,  .   D    C 

i'lIAllillliY:    R[  SEARCH  PUBLICATIONS,  INC  W( )( )1  )HRTnnF~rT 


r 

Association  for  information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 


mi 


IIIIHIIIMIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 


liiiiliiiil 


5        6 

iiiliiiiliiiiliii 


7        8        9 

uiluuiuiiluuiuuu 


10 


llllllll 


11       12       13       14       15    mm 

liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


Inches 


TIT 


I 


I       I 

2 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1^ 

2.8 

2.5 

y£ 

1^ 

3.2 

2.2 

iH 

3.6 

IZi 

■^          III 

US       III 

4.0 

2.0 

u 

li  .. 

i£;u,u. 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

YTTTJ 


MnNUFfiCTURED   TO   flllM   STPNOnRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMnCE,     INC. 


K , " 


m 


!U. 


^  m: 


5»T; 


m 


&■;■ 


r.¥,i 


m 


■""M 


i'Ws 


::!&' 


K-itm 


■M 


-% 
4 


.'A  -K 


i 


^^p'. 

^S' 

Rff- 

Hml^  w,t,^ 

BM      ^''' 

B' " 

Mi 


I 


'H.JS 


last ' 


•plmH 

•'^iiff 

1 1 

w/^^H 

If 

i 

^ 

P^ 

'/vf 

1 

i'l-:-' 

K 

■             " 

m'f  **' 

-*     '           \          p 

r-^'- 

V'V'i   ■;: 

BlwT'' 

■■     1* 

R|' 

••5f;  J. 

iii- 

'tfel 

8 14-,  01 


:i]58 


in  the  ffiitu  of  %Um  Dovh 


%ihxux^ 


THE    HISTORY 


vl- 


THE  KINGS  OF  EOME. 


With 


A  PKEFATOP.Y  DISSERTATION  ON  ITS  SOUIiCES 

AND  EVIDENCE. 


If 


BY 


THOMAS  HENRY  DYER,  LL.D. 

OF   THE    UNIVERSITY   OF   8T.    ANDREWS. 


COL.COT4.. 

N.YORK,  y 


PHILADELPHIA : 

J.    B.    LIPPINCOTT   AND    CO. 

1868. 


PllErACH. 


I 


Si 

'Si 


The  design  of  most  of  tlio  recent  historians  of  Home  appears 
to  liave  been  to  obliterate  as  much  as  they  could  of  its 
ancient  history.  "  Negemus  omnia ;  comburamus  annales, 
iicta  haec  esse  dicamus " — such  seems  to  liave  been  the 
maxim  of  almost  every  critic  and  historian  avIio  has  handled 
this  subject  since  the  days  of  Niebuhr.  The  Germans  have 
of  course  taken  the  lead  in  this  crusade,  as  in  eveiything 
else  connected  with  classical  literature,  and,  in  England  at 
least,  they  have  been  almost  implicitly  followed;  where  the 
scholars  who  have  ventured  to  assert  any  independence  of 
thought  are  few  indeed.  Yet,  after  all,  there  is  little 
originality  in  the  C4erman  scepticism.  All  the  chief  objec- 
tions to  the  early  Roman  history  were  urged  by  De  Beaufort, 
a  century  before  Niebuhr.  The  Germans  following  in  his 
track  have,  with  characteristic  industry  and  perseverance, 
picked  the  bones  of  the  quarry  cleaner.  And  they  have 
done  worse  than  this.  They  have  attempted  to  reconstruct, 
as  well  as  to  destroy,  to  dress  out  the  skeleton  with 
figments  of  their  own,  possessing  generally  not  a  tithe  of 


i 


X: 


CO" 


..^' •/  !- 


)H 


3 


20612 


IV 


PKEFACE. 


PREFACE. 


the  probability  and  consistency  of  the  narrative  wliich  they 
are  intended  to  supplant.  We  are  thus  threatened  with 
a  succession  of  Eoman  histories,  each  totally  unlike  its 
predecessor. 

The  work  now  offered  to  the  public  is  written  on  a  directly 
opposite  plan.  The  object  of  it  is  to  preserve,  instead  of  to 
destroy,  as  much  as  it  may  be  possible  of  the  ancient  history ; 
and  in  this  respect  at  least  it  may  lay  claim  to  comparative 
novelty.  Neither  labour  nor  expense  is  spared  in  endeavour- 
ing to  rescue  from  oblivion  the  smallest  material  relic  of 
antiquity;  a  statue,  a  picture,  a  gem,  or  even  the  meanest 
implement  of  household  use;  yet,  in  what  regards  the 
traditions  of  ancient  times,  we  appear  to  pursue  an  entirely 
opposite  course.  Hence  it  appeared  to  the  author  that  an 
attempt  to  rescue  the  early  Roman  annals  from  the  oblivion 
A\ith  which  they  arc  menaced  might  at  all  events  be  a 
hiudable  one,  and,  if  he  should  succeed  only  in  some  small 
part  of  his  design,  he  will  esteem  himself  abundantly  re- 
compensed for  his  labour.  Such  an  undertaking  necessarily 
involved  a  large  amount  of  critical  discussion.  The  narrative 
l)art  of  the  ])ook  is,  indeed,  little  more  than  a  translation 
of  Livy,  intended  only  as  a  vehicle  for  the  remarks  appended 
to  it.  As  a  medium  for  these,  Schwegler's  "  Romische 
Creschichte  "  has  been  selected,  because  it  embraces  in  the 
completest  detail  all  the  objections  which  have  been  urged 
against  the  early  history,  and  because  it  evidently  suggested 
and  partly  supplied  the  materials  for  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  ^vovk 


on  the  "  Credibility  of  the  Early  Roman  History."  The 
observations  of  the  last-named  writer,  as  well  as  those  of 
other  scholars,  have  been  occasionally  examined,  where  they 
appeared  to  supplement,  or  to  offer  any  divergence  from, 
Schwegler's  arguments;  and  the  author  hopes  it  will  be  found 
that  he  has  not  evaded  the  discussion  of  any  important 
objections.  By  way  of  introduction  a  dissertation  on  the 
sources  of  early  Roman  history,  and  on  its  internal  evidence, 
has  been  prefixed  to  the  book  ;  since  without  an  examination 
of  these,  any  work  on  the  subject  nmst  necessarily  be 
incomplete. 

London,  October  1S67. 


vBt  ; 


'M 


CONTENTS. 


rAdi; 

Prefatory  Dissertation  on  the  Sources  and  Evidences 

OF  EARLY  Roman  Hts^tory v— cxxxv 

SKCTION 

I. — The  early  Population  of  Italy 1 — 23 

II. — Foundation  of  Rome 23— 5() 

III.— Reign  of  Romulus 57—135 

IV. — The  Interregnum l''^5 — 147 

V. — Reign  of  Numa  Pompilius 147—169 

VI. —      „       of  Tullus  Hostilius 169 — 215 

YIj  _      ^^       OF  Angus  Marcius 215—230 

VIII. —      „       OF  Tarquinius  Priscus 230—278 

IX.—      „      OF  Servius  Tullius  and  Inquiry  into  the 

Regal  Constitution 278 — 384 

X.—      ,,      of  Tarquinius  Superbus 384—440 


-■is  ,(•' 


A  DISSERTATION  /:^-. 

ON   THE  SOURCES   OF   EARLY    ROMAN    HISTORY,   AND 
THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  ITS  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


>i 


Any  inquiry  into  the  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the  His- 
tory of  the  Eoman  Kings,  as  handed  down  to  us  by  ancient 
authors,  naturally  divides  itself  into  two  parts, — namely,  its 
external  and  its  internal  evidence.  The  first  of  these  concerns 
the  sources  from  wduch  the  history  has  been  derived,  such  as 
annals,  law^s,  treaties,  and  other  w^ritten  documents  ;  to  wdiicli 
may  be  added,  as  collaterally  confirming  them,  public  works 
and  buildings,  statues,  and  other  monuments  of  the  like  kind. 
The  second  part  of  the  inquiry  concerns  the  probability  of 
the  narrative  when  tested  by  a  critical  examination  of  its 
consistency,  as  well  with  itself  as  with  ordinary  experience 
and  the  general  tenor  of  political  history.  It  is  proposed  to 
pursue,  in  this  Dissertation,  both  these  heads  of  inquiry  in 
the  order  indicated.     And  first,  of  the 

EXTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 

The  gift  of  speech,  without  the  art  of  waiting,  w^ould  be  of 
comparatively  little  value  in  perpetuating  the  annals  of  man- 
kind. Oral  tradition,  besides  being  short-lived  and  evanescent, 
is  ever  liable  to  change  and  falsification ;  against  which  the 
only  safeguards  are  permanent  records.  Hence  the  first  and 
most  important  questions  wiiich  present  themselves  in  the 
present  inquiry  are.  Were  letters  known  at  Home  in  the  time 
of  the  kings?  and,  if  they  were,  is  there  any  reasonable 
ground  for  supposing  that  they  were  employed  to  record  the 
political  events  of  that  period  ?   For  answers  to  these  questions 

h 


II 


X 


SOURCES   OF  ROMAN   HISTORY. 


ART   OF   WHITING. 


XI 


we  naturally  turn  to  ancient  authority,  and,  unless  this  can  he 
successfully  impugned,  we  have  no  right  to  reject  it. 

In  the  opinion  of  some  writers,  the  first  Eomans  were  little 
better  than  illiterate  barbarians.  This  view,  however,  appears 
to  be  very  unreasonable.  The  mere  fact  of  building  a  city 
implies  a  very  considerable  degree  of  civilization.  Not  to 
mention  architectural  art,  it  implies  agriculture  and  trade, 
laws,  and  the  requisite  intelligence  for  civil  and  political 
government.  Eome,  too,  in  comparison  with  many  other 
cities  in  Italy,  was  founded  at  a  late  period,  and,  as  we  shall 
endeavour  to  show,  by  a  Greek  race.  At  that  time,  Greece 
had  made  great  progress  in  literature  and  art ;  the  influence 
of  which,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Cicero,  must  have  been 
felt  in  Italy.  And,  when  we  reflect  that  Cunia^  had  been 
founded  on  the  Italian  coast  perhaps  three  centuries  before 
the  building  of  Eome,  this  opinion  seems  in  the  highest 
degree  probable.  "Atque  hoc,"  says  Cicero,  "eo  magis  est 
in  Eomulo  admirandum,  quod  ceteri,  qui  dii  ex  hominibus 
facti  esse  dicuntur,  minus  eruditis  hominum  s?eculis  fuerunt, 
ut  fingendi  proclivis  esset  ratio,  quum  imperiti  facile  ad 
credendum  impellerentur.  Eomuli  autem  a?tateni  minus  his 
sexcentis  annis,  jam  invetcratis  litteris  atque  doctiinis,  omnique 
illo  antiquo  ex  inculta  hominum  vita  errore  sublato,  fuisse 
cernimus."  ^  Whence  Cicero  evidently  considered  that  the 
influence  of  Greek  literature  had  been  felt  at  Eome  at  that 
period ;  and  we  cannot  consequently  imagine  him  to  have 
thought  that  the  first  Eomans  were  ignorant  of  the  art  of 
writing. 

But  that  letters  were  known  at  least  in  the  time  of  Kuma 
appears  from  more  direct  testimony.  Not  to  mention  Nunia's 
reputation  for  learning,  which  was  so  great  that  he  was 
thought,  though  wrongly,  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  Pythagoras, 
we  are  expressly  told  that  he  committed  his  laws  to  writing.^ 
Ancus  Marcius  subsequently  caused  these  laws  to  be  copied 
out  from  Numa's  Commentaries  into  an  album,  and  posted  up 

1  DeRep.  ii.  10,  18. 

2  "  Eiquo  (Alarcio)  sacra  omnia  exscripta  exsignataquc  dedit." — Liv.  i.  20. 


in  public ;  ^  a  fact  which  not  only  shows  the  use  of  the  art 
of  writing,  but  also  a  reading  public.  In  like  manner  the 
treatv  made  between  Tulhis  Hostilius  and  the  All)ans  is  said 
to  have  been  recited  from  writing.^  If  these  accounts  are 
true,  no  further  proofs  are  wanting  that  letters  were  known 
at  Eome  in  the  time  of  the  kings.  We  may,  however,  mention 
a  few  later  instances,  which  rest  not,  like  those  just  cited, 
merely  on  the  testimony  of  historians,  but  -eonsist  of  docu- 
ments which  survived  till  the  imperial  times,  and  were  then 
seen  by  eye-witnesses.  Such  was  the  treaty  of  confederation 
made  by  Servius  Tullius  with  the  Latins,  engraved  in  antique 
Greek  characters  on  a  brazen  column,  and  preserved  in  the 
Temple  of  Diana  on  the  Aventine,  where  it  was  inspected  by 
Diony sins  ;  ^  who  draws  from  it  an  argument  that  the  Eomans 
could  not  have  been  barbarians.  Also  the  treaty  made  by 
Tarquinius  Superbus  with  the  Gabines,  written  on  an  ox-hide 
stretched  over  a  shield,  and  kept  in  the  Temple  of  Sancus ; 
which  likewise  appears  to  have  been  seen  by  Dionysius.* 
The  same  author  mentions  that  the  treaty  made  by  Tarquinius 
Superbus  with  the  Latins  was  engraved  on  brazen  pillars,  but 
says  not  that  he  had  seen  it.^  Lastly,  we  may  adduce  the 
treaty  between  Eome  and  Carthage,  executed  in  the  first  year 
of  the  republic,  and  preserved  in  the  serarium  of  the  Capi- 
toline  Temple,  where  it  was  copied  by  Polybius  ;  who  remarks 
that  the  language  of  it  w^as  so  ancient  as  to  be  difficult  of 
interpretation  even  by  the  most  learned  in  such  matters.^ 

All  the  passages  in  ancient  authors  relating  to  the  subject 
assume,  either  directly  or  by  implication,  the  use  of  the  art 
of  writing  in  the  kingly  period ;  we  are  not  aware  of  one  in 
which  it  is  denied  or  contested :  the  modern  critic,  therefore, 
who  attempts  to  controvert  it,  is  bound  to  establish  his  opinion 

1  "Omnia  ea  (sacra  publica  ut  a  Numa  instituta  erant)  ex  commcntariis 
regis  pontificem  in  album  elata  proponere  in  publico  jubet."— Liv.  i.  32. 

2  "Tabulis  cerave."— Ibid.  24. 

3  Lib.  iv.  26.  The  use  of  the  word  ?im,  for  sine,  noted  by  Festus  (p.  165, 
Nesi)  as  appearing  in  some  document  in  this  temple,  may,  as  Schwegler 
observes  (B.  i.  S.  18,  Anm.),  have  been  referable  to  this  treaty. 

4  Lib.  iv.  58.     This  treaty  is  also  alluded  to  by  Horace,  Epp.  ii.  i.  25. 
"  Lib.  iv.  48.  ^  Polyb.  iii.  22,  26. 

h2 


I/' 


■'i    ^ 


Xll 


SOUECES   OF  ROMAN   HISTORY. 


by  the  most  irrefragable  proofs.     Scliwegler  has  attemi)ted  to 
do  so,  but  his  arguments  are  based  only  on  inference  and  pro- 
bability.    Thus  he  says  :  ^  "  We  are  led  to  the  same  result — 
namely,  that  the  history  of  the  regal  period  had  not  been  re- 
corded by  any  contemporary  annalist — in  another  manner, 
when  we  consider  the   age   of   Eoman  writing.      It  is  not, 
indeed,  precisely  and  credibly  handed  down  at  what  time  the 
Eomans   became  acquainted  with  the  use  of  letters  :    since 
Evander  and  Hercules,  to  whom  the  introduction  of  them  is 
ascribed,  cannot  of  course  pass  for  historical  personages.    Eut 
since   the   Etruscans,  who  were   earlier   civilized   than   tlie 
Eomans,  according  to  tradition  knew  not  the  art  of  writing  till 
about  the  30th  Olympiad,  through  the  Bacchiad  Demaratus, 
the  father  of  Tarquinius  Priscus ;  and  as  this  tradition,  so  far 
at  least  as  relates  to  the  time,  has  every  probability  in  its 
favour,  we  are  warranted  in  assuming  that  the  liomans  also 
were  unacquainted  with  letters  before  the  epoch  of  the  Tar- 
quinian  dynasty.    We  have  the  more  ground  for  this  assump- 
tion, since  the  Eomans,  as  may  now  be  regarded  as  proved, 
derived  not  their  alphabet  from  the  Etruscans,  but  ap})arently 
from  the  Greeks  of  Campania,   and  probably  from  Cum^e ; 
and  Eome's  commerce  with  Campania  did  not  begin  before 
the  Tarquinian  dynasty.     The  oldest  written  monument  at 
Eonie  mentioned  by  credible  tradition  is  the  document  re- 
lating to  the  foundation  of  the  Dianium  on  the  Aventine  in 
the  time  of  Servius  Tullius.     But,  if  the  Eomans  first  became 
acquainted  with  writing  only  in  the  time  of  the  elder  Tarquin, 
it  cannot  of  course  be  supposed  that  any  extensive  use  of  a 
new  and  difticult  art  could  have  been  made  during'  the  whole 
regal  period.     It  cannot  indeed  be  doubted  that,  under  the 
last  kings,  writing  was  used  for  monumental  purposes, —  such 
as  the  recording  of  public  treaties  and  alliances,  dedicatory 
inscriptions,  &c., — but  not  for  literary  purposes,  or  historical 
record.     The  want  of  writing  materials  forbids  us  to  suppose 
that   this    could   have    existed.      Besides   brazen   tablets    or 
columns,  the  only  materials  employed  for  writing  on  in  the 
very  early  times  were  wooden  tablets,  pieces  of  linen,  the 

^  B.  i.  Sect.  13. 


iW:H 


ART   OF   WRITING. 


xni 


skins  of  animals,  and  tablets  made  of  the  bark  of  trees.  It 
is  clear  that  such  cumbersome  and  inconvenient  materials 
would  place  almost  insuperable  obstacles  in  the  way  of  any 
extensive  use  of  writing ;  and,  under  such  circumstances, 
it  is  hardly  possible  to  conceive  any  literature,  i)roperly  so 
called.  If,  therefore,  what  we  cannot  doubt,  annalistic 
records  were  made  in  the  pne-Gallic  times,  they  must  liave 
been  in  the  last  degree  jejune  and  meagre,  and  could  liave 
contained  only  the  very  briefest  abridgment  of  facts.  A 
real  literature  was  impossible  until  the  use  of  paper  and 
parchment  became  general ;  the  former  of  which  mate- 
rials was  first  discovered,  according  to  Varro,  in  the  time  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  the  latter  under  his  successors." 

The  first  argument  is,  that  the  Etruscans  had  no  alphabet 
before  the  time  of  Demaratus ;  and,  as  the  Etruscans  were 
earlier  civilized  than  the  Eomans,  the  latter  could  not  pre- 
viously have  known  the  art  of  writing.  It  is  also  insinuated 
that  the  art  must  have  been  introduced  at  Eome  by  the 
Tarquins. 

The  authority  for  Demaratus  having  introduced  writing 
among  the  Etruscans  is  contained  in  the  following  passage  of 
Tacitus  :  ^ — "  At  in  Italia  Etrusci  ab  Corinthio  Demarato, 
Aborio[ines  Arcade  ab  Evandro  didicerunt :  et  forma  litteris 
Latinis,  qme  veterrimis  Grsecorum." 

Now  we  must  take  the  whole  of  this  passage  as  containing 
the  tradition ;  we  cannot  say,  at  our  pleasure,  that  one-half 
of  it  is  tradition,  and  the  other  half  not.  The  tradition,  there- 
fore, was,  that  the  aborigines,  under  whom,  in  the  view  of 
Tacitus,  we  must  include  the  Eomans,  did  not  obtain  their 
alphabet  from  the  Etruscans :  consequently,  it  is  quite  beside 
the  purpose  whether  Demaratus  introduced  letters  into  Etruria 
or  not.  According  to  tradition,  Evander  brought  them  into 
Latium ;  and,  whether  Evander  was  a  real  personage  or  not, 
still  he  was  the  hero,  or  symbol,  of  a  very  high  antiquity. 
Consequently  the  tradition  amounts  to  this  :  that  letters  had 
been  known  in  Latium  time  out  of  mind,  and  long  before  the 
arrival  of  Demaratus  at  Tarquinii.     The  assertion,  therefore, 

^  Ann.  iii.  14. 


XIV 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


ART   OF   WRITING. 


XV 


that  the  civilization  of  the  Etruscans  is  of  an  earlier  period 
than  that  of  the  Romans,  is,  so  far  as  letters  are  concerned, 
entirely  unfounded. 

The  anecdote  about  Demaratus  is  nothing  but  a  sort  of 
sidewind  insinuation  of  Schwegler's;  since  he  believes,  as 
we  shall  see  further  on,  that  the  Tarquins  were  a  Latin  family, 
and  came  not  from  Etruria.  And  he  admits  the  futility  of  it 
when  he  observes  that  the  Romans  "  derived  not  their  alphabet 
from  the  Etruscans,  but  from  the  Greeks."  This,  indeed, 
cannot  be  denied ;  the  passage  in  Dionysius  already  cited, 
where  he  speaks  of  the  treaty  in  ancient  Greek  characters 
preserved  in  the  Temple  of  Diana,  is  sufficient  to  prove  it. 
And,  as  we  hope  to  show  in  the  course  of  this  work  that 
Romulus  was  the  son,  or  at  most  the  grandson,  of  a  Greek, 
we  need  not  go  to  Cum?e  for  the  alphabet.  It  had,  indeed,  as 
Ave  have  already  said,  probably  been  naturalized  in  Latium 
long  before  the  time  of  Romulus.  That  the  Romans  got  their 
alphabet  from  Cumse  in  the  time  of  the  Tarquins  is  a  mere 
conjecture,  at  variance  with  tradition,  utterly  destitute  of 
proof,  and  invented  merely  to  prop  a  theory. 

Dr.  Mommsen,  who  has  devoted  gTcat  attention  to  ancient 
alphabets  and  \yriting,  places  at  an  immemorial  period  their 
introduction  into  Italy.  Reasoning  from  the  adoption  of 
abbreviations,  he  obsen^es  :  ^  ''  We  must,  both  as  regards 
Etruria  and  Latium,  carry  back  the  commencement  of  the 
art  of  waiting  to  an  epoch  which  more  closely  approximates 
to  the  first  incidence  of  the  Egyptian  dog-star  period  within 
historical  times,  the  year  1322  B.C.  than  to  the  year  776,  with 
Avhich  the  chronology  of  the  Olympiads  began  in  Greece. 
The  high  antiquity  of  the  art  of  writing  in  Rome  is  evinced 
otherwise  by  numerous  and  plain  indications."  He  then 
proceeds  to  instance  the  treaties,  &c.  of  the  regal  period,  to 
which  we  have  already  alluded,  the  primitive  marking  of 
cattle  {scriptum),  the  mode  of  addressing  the  Senate  (Patres 
conscrij'iti),  &c. 

On  the  whole,  the  use  of  writing  at  Rome,  from  the  very 
earliest  period,  is  established  on  the  best  evidence  that  can 

^  History  of  Rome,  B.  i.  eh.  li,  vol.  i.  p.  221,  Dickboii'«  Trans. 


■AW 

'V. 


'■■J'". 


reasonably  be  expected  in  a  matter  of  such  high  antiquity. 
The  argument  drawn  by  Schwegler  from  the  want  of  writuig 
materials  is  absurd.     Even  allowing  that  the  articles  which 
he  enumerates  are  all  that  could  be  employed  for  the  purpose 
—and  he  omits  the  waxen  tablets  mentioned  in  a  passage 
before  cited  from  Livy '— stiU,  if  linen  could  be  prepared  for 
writing  on,  as  the  Libri  Lintel  show,  then  the  early  Romans 
had  a  very  good  substitute  for  paper ;  not  to  mention  other 
substances,  such  as  wooden  tablets,  the  bark  of  trees,  the 
skins  of  animals,  &c.     Nor  can  any  argument  be  drawn,  as  is 
sometimes  done,^  against  the  use  of  letters,  from  the  ancient 
law  bidding  the  Pra3tor  Maximus  drive  a  nail  into  the  right- 
hand  wall  of  the  Capitoline  Temple  on  the  Ides  of  every  Sep- 
tember.    The  annals  of  the  Pontifex  Maximus  w^ere  not  open 
to  public  inspection  after  the  close  of  each  year ;  and  therefore 
the  nail  w^as  a  convenient  mark  to  show  the  lapse  of  succes- 
sive years.     We  may  infer  from  Livy's  account  that  the  first 
naQ  was  driven  by  the  Consul  M.  Horatius,  when  he  dedicated 
the  temple  in  the  year  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings.     But 
in  fact  it  was  a  superstitious  observance  as  much  as  anything 
else.     And  that  it  was  not  adopted  as  a  substitute  for  writing 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  existed  contemporaneously 
with  the  use  of  writing.     For  in  the  year  B.C.  331,  on  the 
discovery  of  a  system  of  poisoning  among  the  Roman  matrons, 
Cn.  Quinctilius  was  created  Dictator  in  order  to  drive  a  nail ; 
and  the  precedent  was  taken /ro7?i  the  annals  in  the  time  of 
the  secessions  of  the  idUU.  ("  Itaque  memoria  ex  annalibus 
repetita,  in  secessionibus  quondam  plebis  clavum  ab  dictatore 
fixum— dictatorem  clavi  figendi  causa  creari  placuit."— Liv. 
viii.  18.)     The  driving  of  the  nail  was,  therefore,  recorded  in 
writing  in  the  annals  of  the  time.     And  as  it  was  necessary 
to  refer  to  these  annals,  the  precedent  sought  must  have  been 
beyond  the  memory  of  man,  and  would  carry  us  up  about  a 
century.     Now  what  is  called  the  fourth  secession— which, 
however,  rests  only  on  the  authority  of  Ovid— occurred  in 
B.C.  367,  only  thirty-six  years  before  the  period  in  question, 
and  could  not  therefore  have  been  the  period  alluded  to  by 


^  Above,  ]).  xi. 


'i  Sec  Liddell's  Eomc,  eh.  xvL  ;  cf.  Livy,  viii.  3. 


'n4 


% 


XVI 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN   HISTORY. 


Li\y ;  who,  indeed,  recognises  no  secession  on  this  occasion, 
but  says  only  that  the  matter  came  near  to  one.^  The  third 
secession  happened  in  the  year  B.C.  449  ;  and,  even  allowing 
that  it  is  to  this,  and  not  an  earlier  one,  that  Livy  is  referring, 
then  there  must  have  been  annals  extant  in  b  c.  331  which 
reached  back  to  B.C.  449,  or  more  than  half  a  century  before 
the  capture  of  the  city  by  the  Gauls. 

We  do  not  mean  to  impugn  Livy's  inference  from  this 
custom,  that  letters  were  rare  at  that  period.  ^  But  to  assert 
that  they  were  rare  implies  that  they  existed,  and  shows  that 
Livy  did  not  consider  their  existence  to  be  disproved  by  the 
driving  of  the  nail.  And  we  are  ready  to  admit  Schwegler's 
view,  that  letters  were  not  used  "  for  literary  purposes,"  if  by 
that  expression  is  meant  the  works  of  professed  authors, 
written  and  circulated  for  public  use.  But,  in  the  absence  of 
literary  history,  there  might  still  be  historical  record  for  which 
those  "  rarse  liters  "  would  have  sufficed.  We  wish  it  to  be 
remembered  that  we  are  not  attempting  to  prove  that  the 
ancient  works  on  the  subject  are  a  full  and  complete  history 
of  Eome  ;  on  the  contrary,  we  regard  them  as  extremely 
deficient  and  fragmentary.  All  that  we  aim  at  establishing 
is,  that  the  greater  part  of  w^hat  we  do  possess  is  genuine,  and 
that  there  are  no  good  grounds  for  the  sweeping  charges 
brought  against  it  by  some  modern  critics  and  historians :  as, 
for  instance,  when  Niebuhr  asserts  that  "  the  names  of  the 
kings  are  perfectly  fictitious ;  no  man  can  tell  how  long  the 
lioman  kings  reigned,  as  we  do  not  know  how  many  there 
were;  "3  or  when  Dr.  Arnold  says,  even  of  the  latter  part  of 
the  regal  period,  "the  general  picture  before  us  is  a  mere 
fantasy."  ^  We  believe  that,  without  the  aid  of  oral  tradition, 
there  were  records  enough  to  certify  the  names  and  order  of 
succession  of  the  kings,  and  the  general  truth  of  the  leading 
events  of  their  reigns. 

Before  quitting  this  part  of  the  subject,  we  may  observe  that 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  says  little  or  nothing  about  the  art  of  writing  at 


^  "Prope  secessioiiem  plebis  res  venit."— Lib.  vi.  42. 

'  "  Quia  rar?e  por  ea  tempora  literao  erant."— Ibid. 

•''  Lectures,  vol.  i.  p.  4].  *  Hist,  of  Rome,  vol.  i.  p.  40. 


:■■■?      - 
V  :    - 


^J. 


i 


w- 


'£ 


ANNALES    MAXIML 


XVll 


Bome,  and  expresses  no  opinion  as  to  its  antiquity;  a  clear  proof 
that  he  thought  the  arguments  in  its  favour  incontrovertible, 
as  he  seizes  every  opportunity  to  damage  the  early  history. 

Assuming,  therefore,  that  the  art  of  writing  was  known  at 
Bome  from  the  earliest  period,  the  next  step  in  our  inquiry  is, 
For  wdiat  kind  of  public  records  it  was  employed  ? 

Of  these  the  first  in  importance  were  the  Annales  Maximi. 
With  regard  to  these  Cicero  observes : ''  Ab  initio  rerum  Boma- 
narum  usque  ad  B.  Mucium  Bontificem  Maximum,  res  onnies 
siiigulorum  annorum  liiandabat  Uteris  Bontifex  Maximus 
elferebatque  in  alljuui  et  proponebat  tabulani  domi,  potestas 
ut  esset  populo  cognoscendi;  iique  etiam  nunc  Annales  Maximi 
nominantur."  ^  Hence  we  learn  that  from  the  very  earliest 
times  the  Bontifex  Maximus  was  accustomed  to  note  down 
in  a  book  all  the  public  events,  and  thence  to  transfer,  or,  as 
we  might  say,  post  them  into  an  album,  or  whitened  tablet, 
which  he  set  up  before  his  house,  so  that  everybody  might 
read  them.  And  these  annals,  as  we  perceive  from  the  same 
passage,  were  still  extant  in  the  time  of  Cicero — "  etiam  nunc 
Annales  Maximi  nominantur."  Their  existence  is  further  at- 
tested by  other  passages  in  the  same  author.  Thus  in  the 
speech  for  Babirius  (c.  5)  :  "  Cum  iste  omnes  et  suppliciorum 
et  verborum  acerbitates  non  ex  memoria  vestra  ac  pat  rum 
vestrorum,  sed  ex  annaliuni  moiutmentis  atque  ex  rcguvi  conv- 
mcntariis  conquisierit."  And  in  the  De  Legibus  (i.  2,  G) : 
"  Nam  post  annales  pontificum  maximorum,  quibus  nihil 
potest  esse  jucundius  "  (or  jejunius)  "  si  aut  ad  Fabium  .  .  . 
venias,"  &c.,  and  in  other  places,  one  of  which  we  shall 
have  to  cite  further  on.  It  must,  how^ever,  be  admitted,  that 
when,  in  the  passage  first  cited,  Cicero  says  that  these  annals 
existed  from  the  be^inninfij  of  Bome — "  ab  initio  rerum  Boma- 
narum" — he  could  not  of  course  have  meant  any  higher  period 
than  the  reign  of  Xuma  ;  since  the  Bontifices,  as  he  himself 
says  in  another  place,^  w^ere  first  instituted  by  that  king. 

The  existence  of  the  Annales  Maximi  even  down  to  the 
imperial  times  is  attested  by  other  authors.  Thus  Cato,  as 
quoted  by  Aulus  Gellius,^  referred  to  them  in  his  Origines. 


1  Dr  Orat.  ii.  12. 


2  Dc  Rep.  ii.  12. 


3  Noct.  Alt.  ii.  28. 


XVIU 


SOUKCES   OF   KOMAN    IIISTOllY. 


ANNALES   MAXIMI. 


XIX 


Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  cites  them  for  the  death  of  Aruns, 
son  of  Tarquiniiis  Priscus,  in  the  following  passage  :  "  eV  'yap 
ral^  iviavaiaLf;  avwypacfiol'^  Kara  tov  reaaapaKoarov  iviavjov 
Trj<;  TvWcov  dp'yri^  reTeXevrrj/cora  irapeiXrjifiaixev"  ^  where 
by  dvaypacl)ai  Dionysius  means  public  annals,  or  State 
registers :  since  he  distinguishes  them  in  the  following 
passage  from  the  ;^ovo7/5a0m£',  or  annals  of  such  writers 
as  Licinius  Macer,  Gellius,  and  others,  and  points  to  them 
as  the  source  w^hence  such  writers  drew:  aX)C  eocKev 
6  irpMro^;  iv  rat^  %poj/o7joa</)/ai9  tovto  KaTa')(wplaa<^, 
c5  7rdvT€<;  rjicoXovOrjaav  ol  Xotiroly  toctovtov  /jlovov  iv  7al<; 
apx^i^f^t'^  evpcov  dvaypa(j)ac^j  on  wpiafiec^  direardXTjaav 
iirl  TouTcov  Tcbv  virarcov  eh  ^LKeklav,'^  k.  t.  X.  Pliny,  in  his 
Natural  History,^  quotes  a  passage  from  the  Annales  Maximi. 
Macrobius  alludes  to  the  privilege  conceded  to  the  Pontifices 
of  keeping  these  annals,  and  says  that  they  were  called 
Maximi  after  the  Pontifex  Maximus.'*  But  one  of  the  most 
important  passages  as  to  their  nature,  and  especially  as  to 
the  form  in  which  they  w^ere  preserved  and  accessible  to 
readers  in  later  times,  is  the  following  from  Servius :  ^ — 
"  Ita  autem  annales  coniiciebantur :  tabulam  dealbatam  quot- 
annis  Pontifex  Maximus  habuit,  in  qua,  praescriptis  consulum 
nominibus  et  aliorum  magistratuum,  digna  memoratu  notare 
consueverat  domi  militiceque,  terra  marique  gesta  per  singulos 
dies.  Cujus  diligentiai  annuos  commentarios  in  Ixxx  libros 
veteres  retulerunt,  eosque  a  Pontificibus  Maximis,  a  quibus 
fiebant,  Annales  Maximos  appellarunt."  From  which  we 
learn  that  the  names  of  the  consuls,  or  other  annual  magis- 
trates, were  prefixed  to  the  events  of  each  year;  and  con- 
sequently, in  the  regal  period,  the  name  of  the  reigning  king 
would  have  been  prefixed.  Events  were  recorded  under  the 
days  on  which  they  happened  ;  and  it  further  appears,  as  we 
have  before  remarked,  that  the  Pontifex  Maximus  kept  books 
of  the  events  ("  annuos  commentarios ")  besides  inscribino* 
then  on  the  album  for  public  perusal.  And  of  these  Annui 
Commentarii  an  edition  was  in  later  times  published  in  eighty 


^%. 


1  Lib.  iv.  30. 

*  Sat.  iii.  c.  2,  sub  liii. 


2  Lib.  viii.  1, 


^  Lib.  xxxiv.  11. 
'^  .Eu.  i.  373. 


volumes  ;  at  what  time  we  know  not,  but  evidently  before  the 
time  of  Cicero.  And  in  this  edition  the  obsolete  language 
and  spelling  were  probably  modernized. 

Schwegler,  however,  contests  ^  wdiether  these  annals  were 
genuine,  or,  even  if  they  w^ere,  whether  they  could  have  been 
of  much  service  to  an  historian.  He  says  :  "  These  annals 
were  at  a  later  period  copied,  and  thus  multiplied,  forming 
at  last  a  collection  of  eighty  books.  Had  these  records 
been  made  with  due  completeness,  and  in  the  form  of  a  con- 
nected historical  narrative,  they  would  have  constituted  an 
excellent  source  for  later  historians  ;  but  they  were  exceedingly 
meagre  and  concise ;  nothing,  in  short,  but  a  dry  record  of 
external  events  and  circumstances,  and  especially  of  pro- 
digies and  extraordinary  natural  appearances  such  as  eclipses 
of  the  sun  and  moon,  famines,  pestilences,  &c.  Nay,  it  may 
be  questioned  whether  political  actions  or  resolutions  of  the 
popular  assemblies  and  changes  in  the  constitution  were 
fully  noted,  and  whether  the  prominent  or  even  exclusive 
contents  did  not  wholly  consist  of  prodigies,  or  other  like 
events,  which  appeared  remaika])le  in  a  religious  point  of 
view ;  and  whether  it  was  not  for  this  reason  that  the 
keeping  of  these  annals  was  intrusted  to  the  Pontifex 
Maximus.  That  a  chronicle  of  such  a  kind  could  afford 
but  few  materials  to  later  historians  is  evident  at  first  sight ; 
it  could  not  have  been  possible  to  form  from  it  a  connected 
history ;  and  we  need  not  therefore  be  surprised  that  Livy 
and  Dionysius  made  no  use,  or,  at  all  events,  no  immediate 
use,  of  these  annals ;  though  mediately  many  accounts  in 
Livy,  and  especially  those  regarding  prodigies,  may  have 
been  derived  from  the  pontifical  annals. 

"Nevertheless,  if  these  annals  began  from  the  foundation 
of  Iiome,  they  would  have  formed  for  later  historians  a 
desirable  'point  cVaiypui,  and  would  also  have  afforded  a 
certain  security  that  the  general  outlines  at  least  of  the  pri- 
mitive tradition  are  historical.  But  such  an  assumption  is 
incorrect.  Internal  as  well  as  external  evidence  makes  it 
probable   that  the   general  pontifical   annals   do   not   reacli 

"'  IJiuli  i.  ^it.  1. 


■<*■'. 


XX 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


higher  than  the  Gallic  conflagration,  still  less  to  the  regal 
period.  Internal  evidence  ;  because  it  is  precisely  the  chro- 
nology of  the  regal  period  which  is  so  confused  and  so  full 
of  contradictions,  and  rests  so  evidently  on  a  mere  com- 
bination of  numbers,  and  a  subtle  system  of  combination,  that 
it  is  impossible  to  tliink  it  founded  on  a  series  of  records 
annually  made.  External  evidence ;  since  it  cannot  be 
reasonably  doubted  that  the  wooden  tablets  on  which  the 
annals  of  the  Pontifices  were  inscribed,  perished  in  the 
Gallic  conflagration.  They  were  kept  in  the  dwelling  of 
the  Pontifex  ^laximus,  or  the  Eegia,  and  in  the  hasty 
evacuation  of  the  city  were  assuredly  not  saved,  since  even 
the  sacred  utensils  of  the  Temple  of  Vesta  could  be  preserved 
only  by  burying  them.  These  assumptions  from  probability 
are  raised  to  certainty  by  a  passage  in  Cicero.  That  author 
says  (De  Eep.  i.  16),  that  from  the  eclipse  of  the  year  350, 
the  first  recorded  in  the  Annales  Maximi,  the  preceding- 
eclipses  were  calculated  backwards  to  that  of  the  Ides  of 
Quinctilis,  when  Romulus  disappeared.  But,  if  it  was 
necessary  to  compute  them,  they  could  not  have  been  re- 
corded. It  seems  at  all  events  as  if,  after  the  Gallic  con- 
flagration (365),  an  attempt  was  made  to  restore  the  annals 
so  far  backwards  as  the  memory  of  the  living  generation 
served ;  but  such  restored  annals  could  not  of  course  have 
had  the  value  of  authentic  documents.  To  what  period  they 
were  carried  back  is  uncertain.  When  Cicero  aftirms  that 
the  making  of  these  annals  began  with  the  foundation  of 
Eome,  this  means  no  more,  though  improbably  enough,  that 
the  custom  originated  at  that  early  period,  and  not  that  the 
annals  with  which  he  himself  was  acquainted  reached  so  far 
back.  On  the  other  hand,  a  writer  of  the  later  imperial 
times  assumes  that  they  did  ;  and  it  must  at  all  events  l)e 
accepted  that  the  copies  of  the  Annales  jNIaximi  then  in  cir- 
culation went  back  to  that  period.  But  a  fragment  of  these 
restored  annals,  preserved  by  Gellius,  and  the  only  one  which 
remains  to  us,  betrays  a  tolerably  recent  origin. 

"  It  is  almost  the  antiquaries  alone  who  have  made  use 
of  the  annals ;  we  do  not  find  in  the  historians  any  certain 


ANNALES    MAXIMI. 


XXl 


traces  of  their  direct  use.  This  is  particularly  the  case  with 
Livy  and  Dionysius,  as  we  have  before  said.  Even  of  the 
antiquaries,  Yerrius  Elaccus,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  the  last 
who  had  them  in  his  hands  :  for  Gellius,  who  in  all  other 
cases  when  he  cites  'Annals'  means  the  historical  works 
of  the  annalists,  evidently  took  not  his  citation  out  of  the 
Annales  Maximi,  from  these  annals  themselves,  but  from 
Yerrius  Elaccus.  Pliny  also  has  no  quotation  from  them,  nor 
does  he  mention  them  in  the  list  of  his  sources.  In  general, 
Avhen  merely  *  Annales '  are  cited — citations  which  are  fre- 
quently referred  without  ground  to  the  Annales  Maximi — 
it  is  not  these  that  are  meant,  but  always  the  historical  works 

of  the  annalists." 

To  expect  that  the  annals  of  the  Pontifex  Maximus  should 
have   been   made   in   tlie   form   of  a   "connected   historical 
narrative  "  is  to  expect  that  they  should  have  been  regular 
history  instead  of  the  materials  for  it ;  nor  can  we  conceive 
a  better  source  for  later  historians  than  these  records  in  their 
annalistic  form.     When  Schwegler  proceeds  to  say  that  they 
contained  almost,  if  not  quite,  exclusively  only  records  of 
natural  appearances  and  prodigies,  he  asserts  this  only  from 
his    own   conjectures.      For   Servius,  in   a   passage    already 
quoted,^  says  that  they  contained  everytUng  worthy  of  note 
either   in   peace    or  war  set  down  under   the  proper    days. 
This  passage  has  been  captiously  interpreted  as  if  Servius 
asserted  that  there  was  an  entry  under  every  day ;  but  he 
only  means  those  days   on  which  something  noteworthy — 
dignum  mcmoratiL^\\2i^  done.    But,  says  Schwegler  in  a  note, 
it  may  be  asked  whether  Servius  saw  them  with  his  own 
eyes.      To  which  we  answer,  at  all  events  in  their  public 
form;   while  it  is  certain  that  Schwegler  never  saw  them, 
though  he  pretends  to  know  so  much  about  them.     And  if 
Servius  did  not  see  them  himself,  he  must  have  had  better 
information  about  them  than  we  moderns  possess.     And  the 
fact  that  Dionysius  cites  them  for  the  death  of  Aruns  shows 
that  they  recorded  other  events  besides  prodigies. 

This  passage,  to  which  we  have  before  referred,  as  well  as 

1  Sec  above,  p.  xviii. 


^I"^' 


XX 11 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


one  in  Livy,  wliicli  we  proceed  to  quote,  suffices  to  refute 
Schwegler's  assertion  that  those  historians  made  no  immediate 
use  of  the  annals.  Livy  says  :  "  His  consulibus  cum  Ardea- 
tibus  foedus  renovatum  est :  idque  monumento  est,  consules 
eos  illo  anno  fuisse,  qui  neque  in  annalibus  priscis,  neque 
in  libris  magistratuum  inveniuntur."  ^  Livy  cannot  be  here 
referring  to  the  annals  of  Fabius,  Piso,  and  the  other  early 
historians:  first,  because  by  way  of  distinction  he  calls  the 
annals  which  he  cites  prisci ;  secondly,  because  he  is  appeal- 
ing to  them  as  a  work  of  high  authority,  coupling  them  with 
the  Libri  JMagistratuum,  another  official  record,  and  indeed 
naming  them  first,  as  the  more  important  w^ork.  Livy  pro- 
ceeds to  explain  how  the  names  of  the  consuls  might  have 
been  omitted :  military  tribunes,  he  thinks,  had  been  appointed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  year ;  and  the  consuls,  being  suffedi, 
had  not  been  mentioned.  Why  so  ?  Because  the  magistrates 
appointed  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  were,  in  fact,  the  date 
of  it;  and  if  two  sets  of  magistrates  had  been  named,  the 
chronology  would  have  been  in  confusion.  But  Livy's  obser- 
vations on  this  point  further  show  that  he  is  alluding  to  some 
official  record ;  for,  in  a  literary  history,  a  motive  like  that 
alluded  to  for  suppressing  the  names  of  the  consides  siiffecti 
could  not  have  existed. 

We  see  by  this  example  that,  from  the  imperfect  manner 
in  which  the  early  Eoman  records  were  kept,  and  especially 
from  the  want  of  a  fixed  chronological  era,  an  historian  who 
trusted  to  these  official  documents  alone  might  easily  be  led 
into  error.  Thus,  in  the  present  instance,  the  consulate  of 
L.  Papirius  Mugillanus  and  L.  Sempronius  Atratinus  would 
have  been  unknown  except  for  the  renewal  of  the  treaty 
with  Ardea.  In  the  time  of  the  kings,  matters  must  have 
been  still  worse,  as  there  would  have  been  no  mark  to 
distinguish  one  year  of  their  reigns  from  another  ;  their  sum 
at  the  end  of  them  is  all  that  is  given.  In  such  a  state  of 
things,  even  with  a  knowledge  of  writing,  the  driving  of  a 
nail  as  a  chronological  mark  w^as  a  contrivance  not  to  be 
despised.     We  may  well  suppose  that  tliere  were  other  points 

'   Lib.  iv.  7. 


'In 


t: 


t  - 


ANNALKS   MAXIMI 


XXIU 


in  which  these  annals  were  imperfect ;  and  we  need  not 
therefore  wonder  that,  in  spite  of  tliem,  great  variation  and 
uncertainty  prevailed  in  the  early  iloinan  history. 

The  few  occasions  on  which  the  Annales  Maxim!  are 
appealed  to  by  ancient  writers  are  no  proof  of  their  non- 
existence. It  w^as  not  the  custom  of  ancient  historians  to 
quote  their  sources  ;  they  refer  to  them  only  now  and  then 
in  cases  of  doubt  and  difficulty.  Schwegler's  assertion,  there- 
fore, that  Livy  and  Dionysius  made  no  immediate  use  of 
them,  is  groundless,  because  it  is  impossible  for'  anybody  to 
say  whether  they  did  so  or  not. 

Schwegler  asserts  in  a  note  ^  tliat  neither  Livy  nor  Dionysius 
ever  mentions  the  Annales  Maximi ;  which  may  be  true  lite- 
rally— that  is,  they  are  not  found  quoted  under  that  precise 
name.  But  we  have  already  produced  passages  from  those 
authors  which  can  have  been  derived  from  no  other  source. 
Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  adduce  several  passages  from 
Livy  (viz.  ii.  54,  iii.  23,  iv.  20,  iv.  23,  iv.  34,  vii.  21,  viii.  18, 
xxxiii.  8),  in  which  annales  are  mentioned,  and  denies  that  in 
any  one  of  them  the  pontifical  annals  can  be'  meant.  That 
this  is  the  case  in  the  greater  part  of  these  passages  we 
admit,  but  there  are  two  of  them  in  which  w^e  take  it  to 
be  impossible  that  Livy  can  have  been  alluding  to  the 
literary  annals  of  Fabius  Pictor,  Cincius  Alimentus,  and  their 
successors.  One  of  these  is  the  follow^ing: — "Qui  si  in  ea 
re  sit  error"  (viz  that  Cornelius  Cossus  was  a  Tribunus  mili- 
tum)  "  quod  tam  veteres  annales  quodque  magistratuum  libri, 
quos  linteos  in  sede  repositos  Monetae  Macer  Licinius  citat 
identidem  auctores,  nono  post  demuni  anno  cum  T.  Quinctio 
Penno,  A.  Cornelium  Cossum  consul  em  habeant,  existimatio 
communis  omnibus  est"  (iv.  20).  Now  here,  as  in  a  case 
before  adduced,  the  annales  alluded  to  being  again  coupled 
with  the  Magistratuum  Libri,  being  again  placed  before  them 
in  the  order  of  precedence,  and  therefore,  we  may  presume, 
of  importance,  and  being  further  characterised  by  the  very 
strong  epithet  "  tam  veteres,"  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  that 
the  annals  of  Fabius  or  Cincius  can  have  been  meant,  and 

1  S.  8,  Anm.  4. 


«tl 


XXiV 


SOUIiCES   OF   KOMAN    ITISTOUY. 


we  are  consequently  driven  to  one  of  two  conclusions  :  either 
tliat  Livy  must  be  here  referring  to  the  Annates  jVIaximi,  or 
at  all  events  that  there  must  have  been  other  annals  long 
antecedent  to  the  time  of  Fabius,  and  the  other  rex)uted  first 
literary  annalists. 

The  following  instance  ffrom  Lib.  xxviii.  8)  we  take  to  be 
still  more  decisive.  The  story  is  this.  C.  Valerius  Flaccus 
having  obtained  the  office  of  Flanien  Dialis,  insisted  on  an 
ancient  right  attached  to  that  priesthood  of  entering  the 
Senate.  But  the  Praetor,  L.  Licinius,  ejected  him,  affirming 
that  the  law  was  not  to  be  determined  by  examples  that  had 
become  obsolete  through  the  high  antiquity  of  the  annals 
which  contained  them — "  non  exoletis  vetustate  annalium 
exemplis  stare  jus  voluit " — but  by  recent  usage  and  custom  ; 
and  that  no  Flamen  Dialis  had  enjoyed  tlie  riglit  in  the 
memory  of  their  fathers  or  grandfathers.  N^ow  this  dispute 
occurred  in  the  consulship  of  Q.  Fulvius  Flaccus  in  B.C.  209. 
Fabius  and  Cincius,  the  first  literary  Eoman  annalists,  only 
flourished  about  this  time.  Licinius  therefore  could  not 
possibly  have  been  alluding  to  their  annals,  since  those  which 
he  cites  must  have  been  at  least  a  century  older,  going  back 
beyond  his  grandfather.  Besides,  it  would  have  been  an 
absurdity  to  quote  a  literary  history  on  a  point  of  constitu- 
tional law,  and  not  some  authentic  state-document.  Licinius 
must  therefore  have  been  alluding  either  to  the  Annates 
Maximi,  or  at  all  events  to  the  Commentarii  Pontificum, 
which,  as  we  shall  show  further  on,  were  another  documentary 
source  of  Eoman  history. 

It  is  true  that  this  example  cannot  be  made,  by  strict 
demonstration,  to  carry  us  up  beyond  the  Gallic  conflagration ; 
but  it  reaches  demonstrably  to  within  eighty  years  of  it,  and 
is  therefore,  at  all  events,  a  refutation  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's 
opinion  that  there  was  no  recorded,  and  consequently  no 
authentic,  history  before  the  time  of  Fabius.^     But,  by  any 

^  On  this  subject  we  may  quote  the  following  from  Niebuhr  : — "  We  have  no 
reason  to  deny  that  history  was  written  at  Rome  previous  to  the  banishment 
of  the  kings." — Led.  vol.  i.  p.  6.  And  :  "  The  scepticism  is  contemptible 
which  says  that  the  Romans  had  no  history  before  the  time  of  Fal)ius." — 
Ibid.  p.  21. 


I 


H 


THE   BREASTPLATE    OF   COSSUS. 


XX  V 


fair  and  candid  interpretation,  the  words  of  Licinius  carry 
us  up  a  century  or  two  liigher;  for  it  is  not  customary  to 
speak  of  records  only  a  hundred  years  old  as  quite  obsolete 
and  out  of  date  on  account  of  their  antiquity. 

But  the  previous  passage  respecting  Cornelius  Cossus 
carries  us  certainly  higher  than  the  Gallic  conflagration. 
According  to  Livy,  and  the  authorities  which  he  followed, 
Cossus,  being  then  a  military  tribune,  but  not  consulari 
X>ofestate,  i^laced  the  second  Opima  Spolia  in  the  Temple  of 
Jupiter  Feretrius  in  the  year  B.C.  437.  But  when  Augustus 
Csesar  inspected  that  temple  previously  to  rebuilding  it,  he 
found  therein  a  linen  doublet,  having  on  it  an  inscription 
respecting  the  spoils,  in  which  Cossus  was  styled  "  consul.'* 
In  a  later  edition  of  his  book,  Livy  deferred  to  the  imperial 
critic,  though  not  with  a  very  good  grace.  Augustus  had, 
indeed,  a  sort  of  personal  interest  in  the  question.  In  his 
fourth  consulship,  ls\.  Crassus  slew,  with  his  own  hand, 
Deldo,  king  of  the  Bastarn?e.  But,  though  Crassus  on  this 
occasion  commanded  the  Roman  army,  Augustus  allowed 
him  not  the  honour  of  the  Opima  Spolia,  alleging  that  the 
victory  belonged  to  himself  as  consul,  having  been  achieved 
under  his  auspices  ;  ^  against  which  decision  the  inscription 
on  the  doublet  would  have  been  a  standing  protest,  if  proof 
could  have  been  drawn  from  .it  that  Spolia  Opima  might  be 
claimed  by  a  subordinate  officer. 

But  this  by  the  way.  For  our  purpose  the  material  point 
is  that  an  inscription  placed  in  the  Temple  of  Jupiter  Fere- 
trius forty-eight  years  before  the  Gallic  conflagration  had  been 
preserved  down  to  the  imperial  times.  It  appears  further 
that  there  were  Annals  and  Libri  Magistratuum,  quoted 
by  Licinius  ]\Iacer,  from  which  it  appeared,  in  contradiction 
of  the  assertion  of  Augustus,  that  Cossus  did  not  become 
consul  till  nine  years  later,  or  in  B.C.  428.  These  annals 
must  undoubtedly  have  been  contemporary,  as  may  be  in- 
ferred both  from  the  way  in  which  Livy  characterises  them — 
"  tain  veteres  annates  "—and  from  the  consideration  that  he 
would  not  have  been  so  silly  as  to  appeal  against  the  authority 

1   Dio  Ca5?s.  11.  24. 
C 


\M 


f-i. 


XXVI 


SOURCES    OF    liOMAN    HISTOr{V. 


ANN  ALES    MAXlMf. 


XXVll 


of  a  contemporary  document  to  annals  which  were  compiled 
a  couple  of  centuries  later. 

Amon^  the  instances  which  Schwef^ler  adduces  in  the 
same  note  from  Dionysius  to  show  that  he  does  not  allude  to 
the  Annates  Maximi,  he  omits  that  which  we  have  already 
quoted  from  Lib.  iv.  30,  where  it  is  hardly  possible  that  any- 
thing else  can  be  meant.  In  the  following  passage  from 
Lib.  i.  73  :  ifc  iraXacwv  'Kojcov  iv  lepal^  he\T()C<;  aco^o/uLevcjv, 
Dionysius  rather  meant,  as  we  shall  see  further  on,  the 
Common tarii  Pontificum  than  the  Annates  Lfaximi.  The 
passage  in  Lib.  i.  74 — eVl  rov  irapa  toU  ^Ajx^aevac  Kei/mivov 
TTtvaKOi; — is  corrupt  ;  but  whether,  with  Niebuhr,  we  shoidd 
read  apxi-^P^vo-c  we  will  not  preteud  to  determine. 

Schwegler  proceeds :  "  Internal  as  well  as  external  evi- 
dence makes  it  probable  that  the  genuine  annals  of  the 
pontiffs  do  not  reach  beyond  the  Gallic  conflagration,  and 
still  less  into  the  regal  period."  The  internal  evidence  is 
derived  from  the  alleged  confusion  and  contradiction  in  the 
chronology  of  the  regal  period,  and  from  its  resting  on  mere 
combination  of  numbers,  and  a  subtle  system  of  computation. 
The  chronoloov  we  shall  have  to  examine  further  on,  and 
need  not  therefore  enter  into  the  subject  here.  The  com- 
bination of  numbers  and  subtle  system  of  com})utation  arise, 
as  we  also  hope  to  show,  only  from  the  fanciful  views  of 
German  critics,  and  are  not  found  in  the  ancient  authors. 
But  though  Schwegler  asserts  that  the  genuine  annals  of  the 
pontiffs  do  not  reach  beyond  the  Gallic  conllagration,  yet  he 
soon  afterwards  quotes  a  passage  from  Cicero  (L)e  liep.  i.  IG), 
in  which  that  author  says  that  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  was  noted 
down  in  the  Annates  IMaximi  in  A.u.c.  350  ;  tliat  is,  thirteen 
years  before  the  capture  of  the  city  by  the  Gauls.  And  as 
S(ihwegler  and  other  German  critics  use  this  passage  as  an 
argument  against  the  existence  of  still  earlier  annals,  they 
must  of  course  consider  it  to  be  genuine ;  otherwise  their 
reasoning  is  unfounded  and  absurd.  But  if  this  entry  is 
genuine,  there  can  be  no  reason  why  entries  of  much 
earlier  date  should  not  also  be  genuine  :  for,  if  this  part  of 
the  annals  had  escaped  the  fire,  the  whole  might  have  been 


f. 


'.I. ' 

'■■'  *■  ' 


*# 


!>!■■ 

1  ■«,* 


m 


■Si-. 


.     'US-. 


>' 


saved.  ^loreover,  we  have  already  shown  ^  that  annals  of 
some  sort  must  have  been  extant  in  B.C.  449,  or  fiftv-nine 
years  before  the  Gallic  confUigration  ;  since  they  are  quoted 
as  furnishing  a  precedent  for  the  driving  of  a  nail  by  the 
dictator  Quinctilius  in  B.C.  331 . 

Schwegler,  however,  ignores  this  evidence  for  the  existence 
of  annals  before  the  conflai]^ration,  foundin-^^  his  arffument, 
or  rather  we  should  say,  his  conjecture,  on  the  other  side  on 
a  mistranslation  of  Livy.  "  It  cannot  be  reasonably  doubted," 
he  observes,  "that  the  wooden  tablets  on  which  the  Annals 
of  the  I*ontifices  were  written  perished  in  the  Gallic  con- 
flagration. They  were  kept  in  the  dwelling  of  the  Tontifex 
Maxinms, — that  is,  in  the  liegia,  and  in  the  hasty  evacuation 
of  the  city  were  assuredly  not  saved ;  since  even  the  sacred 
utensils  of  the  Temple  of  Yesta  could  be  preserved  only  by 
burying  them." 

This  view,  wrong  and  absurd  as  it  is,  has  been  adopted  by 
all,  or  most,  of  the  leading  German  critics ;  as  Niebuhr, 
Becker,  and  others.     Niebuhr  remarks  :  - — 

"Now  I  grant  Antonius  in  Cicero  says  that  this  custom" 
(viz.  of  making  annals)  '"had  subsisted  from  the  beginning  of 
the  Iioman  state :  but  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  Cicero 
meant  to  assert  that  the  annals  in  possession  of  the  Eoman 
historians,  who  did  not  begin  to  write  till  so  late,  reached 
thus  far  back.  Those  of  the  earlier  times  may  have  perished ; 
which  Livy  and  other  writers,  without  specific  mention  of  the 
Annates  ]\Iaximi,  state  as  having  happened  at  the  destruction 
of  the  city  by  the  Gauls  :  and  certainly  this  fate  may  have 
befallen  them  at  that  time,  as  the  tables  perhaps  were  not 
yet  transferred  into  books,  and  it  is  still  less  likelv  that  anv 
transcripts  of  such  books  should  be  in  existence;  besides 
they  may  not  have  been  preserved  in  the  Capitol,  where  the 
chief  pontiff  did  not  reside,  and  vrhere  he  had  no  occasion 
to  keep  his  archives  like  the  duumvirs  of  the  Sibylline  books. 

"  I  think  we  may  now  consider  it  as  certain  that  those 
annals  really  met  wdth  such  a  fate,  and  that  they  were 
replaced  by  new  ours." 


^  Above,  )).  xvi. 


^  Hist,  of  Rome,  vol.  i.  j).  212  (Ei)g.  Trans.). 


c  2 


XX  VI 11 


SOURCES   OF    ROMAN    IIISTOKY. 


ANXALES   MAXnir. 


XXIX 


Let  us  advert  for  a  moment  to  tins  curious  specimen  of 
argumentation,  where  a  conclusion  considered  as  "  certain  " 
is  deduced  from  a  series  of  tlie  loosest  conjectures.  Thus 
it  is  said  that  the  earlier  annals  may  have  perished;  that 
Livy  and  other  writers  state  this  to  have  happened,  but 
without  specific  mention  of  the  Annates  Maximi ;  that  this 
fate  "niaij  have  befallen  them,  as  the  tables  perhaps  were  not 
yet  transferred  into  books,  and  it  is  still  less  lil'chj  that  any 
transcripits  of  them  were  in  existence ;  besides,  they  may  not 
have  been  preserved  in  the  Capitol.  From  which  series  of 
conjectures  follow  the  very  satisfactory  conclusion  that  it  may 
now  be  considered  as  certain  "those  annals  really  met  with 
such  a  fiite  ! " 

But  our  main  object  in  citing  this  passage  is  to  show  that 
Xiebuhr  was  of  opinion  that  the  Tontifex  Maximus  noted 
down  the  events  which  formed  his  Annals  at  once,  and  in 
the  first  instance,  on  an  album  or  whitened  board  ;  that 
these  boards  were  kept  year  after  year  in  tlie  Eegia,  and 
consequently  at  the  time  of  the  Gallic  fire,  supposing  that 
they  began  with  the  reign  of  Tullus  Hostilius,  would  have 
amounted  to  nearly  300,  or  many  cartloads  ;  and,  as  they  had 
never  been  copied  into  a  book,  and  were  too  cumbersome  to 
carry  away,  were  then  burnt. 

To  the  same  purpose  Becker  remarks i^  ''If  the  assump- 
tion of  the  existence  of  these  annals  in  the  earliest  times, 
and  especially  in  the  regal  period,  is  destitute  of  all  proba- 
bility, then  Cicero's  assertion,  that  they  existed  ab  initio  reruin 
Rmnanannn,  becomes  almost  an  impossibility  by  the  fate 
which  must  and  would  have  overtaken  these  tables.  They 
were  kept,  according  to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  authors, 
in  the  dwelling  of  the  Pontifex  IVIaximus, — that  is,  in  the 
Eegia,  hard  by  the  Temple  of  Yesta  on  the  Eorum.  We 
cannot  suppose  that  there  were  any  copies  of  them.  The 
Eegia  was  the  only  record-office  at  Rome ;  except,  perhaps, 
that  some  religious  corporations  may  have  recorded  a  few 
things  in  sepai'ate  commentaries.  Now,  even  if  we  had  no 
historical  testimony  to  the  fact,  it  would  be  very  natural  that 

^  E6m.  AlteitL.  B.  i.  S.  7. 


p- 


tlds  ponderous  history  should  have  been  destroyed  in  the 
Gallic  fire.  It  is  not  to  be  conceived  that  in  the  hasty 
evacuation  of  the  city  any  tliought  was  taken  for  their  pre- 
servation. In  the  midst  of  that  panic  the  sacred  utensils  of 
Vesta's  Temple  were  saved  only  by  burying  tliem ;  and  it 
may  even  be  doubted  whether  the  Twelve  Tables,  that  dearly 
Xuirchased  and  most  important  monument,  were  not  abandoned 
as  a  prey.  Still  less  would  those  wooden  tables  have  been 
thought  of;  and  that  they  w^ere  not,  that  the  chronicle  of 
the  city  was  then  destroyed,  is  decisively  recognised  by  some 
authors." 

On  this  w^e  may  remark  :  first,  that  even  had  the  Annales 
Maximi  existed  only  on  a  quantity  of  boards,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  they  would  have  been  destroyed  by  the  Gaids  ; 
since,  as  a  professed  topographer  like  l^ecker  should  have 
known,  the  Eegia  was  not  burnt  on  that  occasion,  but  existed 
till  the  fire  in  Xero's  reign,  when  the  destruction  of  that 
ancient  monument  is  expressly  recorded  by  Tacitus. ^ 

But,  secondly :  although  Niebuhr,  Becker,  Schwegler,  and 
other  German  critics  often   accuse   Cicero  and  Livv  of  not 
understanding  their  own  language,  yet  their  view  of  tlie  his- 
tory  of  the    Annales    Maximi — the  egregious  absurdity   of 
which  might,  one  would  have  supposed,  have  caused  tliem  to 
pause  and  inquire  a  little  further— is  founded  on  a  gross  mis- 
translation of  a  common  Latin  construction.     Cicero,  describ- 
ing the  manner  of  making  the  Annals,  in  the  passage  already 
quoted,  uses  the  words,  "  Ees  omnes  shigulorum  annorum  nian- 
dabat  Uteris  (Pontifex)  efferebatque  in  album  : "  that  is,  first 
of  all  he  wrote  the  events  down,  and  then   transferred,  or 
posted  them,  into  an  album.     It  is  singular  how  such  <q'eat 
critics  should  have  missed  the  sense  of  so  simple  a  passage. 
Two  acts  are  plainly  signified,  as  we  see  by  the  enclitic  que  : 
first  the  events  were  noted  in  a  book  kept  by  Pontifex,  and 
were  thence  copied  out  into  the  album,  for  public  inspection. 
The  word  effero   admits  no  other  mode  of  construing.     To 
make  this  plain,  we  will  cite  from  Livy  -  another  j-jassage,  in 


'  Ann.  XV  41. 


Lib.  i.  32, 


XXX 


SOUllCES   OF    ROMAN    IlISTORV. 


which  it  is  similarly  used  :  "  Omnia  ea,  ex  commentanis  regis 
pontificem  in  Album  elata  proponere  in  publico  jubet," 
where  the  matters  in  the  album  are  posted  (data)  out  of  the 
commentaries  of  Numa. 

Thus  the  conjectures  and  assumptions  of  these  cntics  about 
the  existence  of  cartloads  of  wooden  tables,  and  about  the 
non-existence  of  a  copy  of  their  contents,  fall  at  once  to  the 
ground.  The  ponderous  record  is  reduced  to  a  portable 
volume  or  two,  nmch  more  easily  to  be  saved  than  the  uten- 
sils of  Vesta's  Tem})le,  and  which,  according  to  the  best 
testimony  of  antiquity,  iverc  saved. 

Becker,  however,  asserts  that  their  destruction  is  "  deeisively 
recognised"  by  some  writers.  But  those  who  have  only 
glanced  into  Becker's  books  know  that  the  worse  case  he  has 
the  more  bold  and  confident — we  had  almost  said  arrogant — 
are  his  assertions.  The  chief  writer  whom  he  adduces  in 
support  of  his  view  is  Livy,  in  the  well-known  passage  in 
Lib.  vi.  1  :  "  Et  quod  etiamsi  qua3  in  Connnentariis  Pontifi- 
cum  aliisque  publicis  privatisque  erant  monumentis,  incensa 
urbe  pleraque  interiere."  In  examining  this  passage  we  will 
quote  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  remarks  upon  it.  He  is  also  of  opinion 
that  the  Annales  Maxinii  perished  in  the  conflamvation, 
though  lie  does  not  appear  to  have  thought  that  they  were 
written  only  on  wooden  tablets. 

"Livy  tells  us,"  says  the  author  just  mentioned,i  "that 
most  of  the  early  records  perished  at  this  time  ;  and  if  there 
w^as  so  important  an  exception  as  a  complete  series  of  con- 
temporary national  annals,  he  could  scarcely  fail  to  mention 
it.  Hence  Goettling,  in  his  History  of  the  Ptoman  Constitu- 
tion, expresses  his  opinion  that  the  Annales  ^Maximi  were  not 
preserved  for  the  period  antecedent  to  this  event.  It  is  even 
conjectured  by  Becker,  in  his  work  on  Pwoman  Anticpiities, 
that  the  original  brazen  plates  on  which  the  laws  of  the 
Twelve  Tables  were  engraved  perished  in  this  conflagration 
and  ruin,  and  that  the  copy  afterwards  set  up  was  a  restora- 
tion.    If  a  record  of  so  enduring  a  nature  as  the  Twelve 

^  Credibility  of  the  Early  Komau  Hidtoiy,  vol.  i.  p.  158. 


A XX ALES   MAXIMI. 


XXXl 


Tables  did  not  survive  this  calamity,  it  is  not  likely  the  more 
perishable  annals  of  the  pontiff's  should  have  weathered  the 
storm."  1 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  is  generally  a  closer  reasoner  than  the 
German  critics,  in  whose  method  it  is  truly  wonderful  how 
soon  a  mere  conjecture,  or  series  of  conjectures,  becomes  a 
certainty,  as  in  the  specimen  already  given  from  Niebuhr.  In 
a  similar  manner  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  here  adopts  Becker's  conjec- 
ture that  the  brazen  plates  of  the  Twelve  Tables  were  destroyed, 
and  then  proceeds  to  argue,  that  if  a  record  of  so  enduring  a 
nature  did  not  survive,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  more  perish- 
able annals  survived.  Where,  letting  alone  the  bad  logic,  we 
might  ask  why  should  not  a  portable  book — and  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis  seems  to  think  that  tliey  were  first  entered  in  a  book^ 
— have  as  good,  or  better,  chance  of  escape  as  a  quantity  of 
brazen  tablets,  fixed  most  probably  on  a  wall,  and  difficult 
to  be  detached  ? 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  thinks  that,  had  the  Annales  IMaximi  been 
saved,  Livy  would  not  have  failed  to  say  so.  We  think  the 
contrary  view  the  more  probable  one, — that  had  they  been 
lost  he  would  assuredly  have  mentioned  it.  In  the  passage 
in  question  Livy  is  enumerating  the  losses  by  the  fire  ;  and, 
though  he  instances  the  Commentarii  Pontificum,  he  says 
nothing  about  the  Annales  IVlaximi,  a  much  more  important 
document.  The  natural  inference  is,  that  they  were  saved. 
And  it  would  have  been  supererogatory  to  mention  a  fact 
which  must  have  been  notorious  to  every  Eoman. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that  Becker's  assertion 
that  the  destruction  of  the  Annals  is  decisiveJij  recognised 
("  mit  Entschiedenheit ")  by  some  authors,  is  at  all  events  not 
applicable  to  Livy.  And  what  else  can  be  produced  in  sup- 
port of  his  view  ?     Only  two  passages  from  Ilutarch,  one  of 

^  Yet  ill  another  place  (vol.  i.  p.  112),  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  is  of  opinion  that 
at  least  the  authentic  text  was  preserved. 

2  He  does  not  ex[)ressly  say  so  ;  but  we  infer  from  his  description  of  the 
making  of  them  that  such  was  his  conception  :  viz.  that  the  Pontifex  Maximus 
"  used  to  commit  all  the  events  of  each  year  to  writimiy  to  inscribe  them  on  a 
whitened  tablet,  and  to  exhibit  this  record  in  his  house  "  (p.  IS.**),  where  the 
word  v.-rite  and  inscribe  seem  to  refer  to  two  <iistinet  acts. 


XXXll 


SOURCES   OF   PtOMAX    IIISTOliY. 


AXNALES   MAXIMI. 


XXXlll 


which  is  an  appeal  to  this  very  chapter  of  Livy,  and  therefore 
adds  nothing  to  the  evidence,  for  we  can  interpret  Livy  for 
ourselves.  We  shall  only  observe  on  it  that  Plutarch,  by  tlie 
use  of  the  word  vTTOfjLvrjfiartafiov^,  seems,  like  ourselves,  to 
have  construed  Livy  as  referring  only  to  the  Commentarii 
and  not  the  Annales.  The  other  passage  runs  as  follows :  ^ 
KXwofco?  Ti<;  ev  EXijKM  ^povcop  (ovtco  yap  ttw?  iTTLjeypaTrrac 
TO  fii/BXlov)  laxvpi^eruL  rag  fiev  npxciia<i  ifC€iva<^  avaypa(j)a<i 
eV  ToZ?  KecXriKoh  irdOecn  tt}?  TroXecoQ  rj^avlaOaL'  ra?  he  vvu 
^aiyofieva<^  ovfc  ''a\r}6(^<^  avyKelcrOai,  k,  t.  X.  But  it  is  not 
certain  that  this  Clodius,  whom  Plutarch  mentions  so  dis- 
paragingly as  some  obscure  writer  (KXcootc?  7^9),  is  speaking 
of  the  Annales  Maximi  ;  for  tliese  annals  would  hardly  have 
entered  into  any  question  about  the  genealogy  of  Numa. 
Clodius  was  more  probaby  speaking  of  the  Commentarii  Pon- 
tificum,  ^^•}lich,  as  we  shall  show  further  on,  contained  a 
history  of  the  city  from  the  earliest  times ;  and  which,  or  the 
greater  part  of  them,  were  no  doubt  burnt  at  the  capture  of 
the  city,  though  they  were  afterwards  probably  restored  so 
well  as  it  could  be  done.     But  of  this  by  and  by.^ 

The  testimony  of  this  obscure  Clodius  is  eagerly  grasped 
at  by  the  critics,  and  especially  by  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis.  It  is 
astounding  what  these  sceptical  critics  will  believe,  provided 
only  it  can  be  turned  against  the  received  history.  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis,  who  refers  the  account  of  Clodius  to  the  Annales 
Maximi,  actually  thinks  it  possible  that  so  important  a  public 
document  as  these  annals,  extending  over  centuries,  and 
always  exhibited  in  public,  might  be  forged  with  impunity 
and  success.  He  observes  :  2  *'  The  account  of  the  discovery 
of  the  books  of  iS^uma  in  a^stone  chest  in  the  year  181  B.C. 
proves  indubitably  that  documents  on  the  most  important 
subjects  could  be  forged  at  that  time  with  the  hope  of  suc- 
cessful deceit,  and  be  attributed  to  the  ancient  kings.  The 
circumstances  attending  this  supposed  discovery,  and  its  treat- 
ment by  the  Senate,  are  conclusive  evidence  that  it  was  a 
deliberate  imposture.  Considering  the  reverence  in  which 
Numa  and  his  ordinances  resjoecting  religion  were  held  by  the 

'  De  Fortun.  Rom.  13.  2  Yq]   ^   ^   ;i^-_ 


Eomans  of  this  period,  we  may  be  certain  the  Senate  Avould 
not  have  caused  the  books  to  be  burnt,  if  their  forgery  had 
not  been  placed  out  of  all  doubt."  ^ 

Never  was  a  bad  argument  supported  by  a  more  unfortu- 
nate example.  No  doubt  the  pretended  books  of  Numa  were 
"a  deliberate  imposture."  No  doubt,  also,  that  the  Senate 
was  satisfied  of  the  imposture  when  it  caused  them  to  be 
burnt.  But  what  does  all  this  prove  ?  Why,  that  documents 
on  the  most  important  subjects,  though  they  might  be  forged 
at  that  time,  as  they  may  at  any  time,  with  the  hope  of  suc- 
cess, yet  that  the  hope,  as  the  event  proved,  was  very  ill 
founded.  And  if  the  forgery  of  some  isolated  books  failed  of 
success,  how  much  more  difficult  would  it  have  been  to  forge  the 
whole  annals  of  a  nation !  It  was  a  plausible  contrivance  to  diir 
up  Numa's  books  on  the  spot  where  he  was  supposed  to  have 
been  buried,  nor  would  their  contents  have  interfered  with 
tradition,  or  with  the  pretensions  of  family  pride.  But  how 
should  those  bulky  annals,  which  ultimately,  we  are  told, 
filled  eighty  volumes,  have  been  suddenly  brought  before  the 
public  with  any  plausible  account  of  their  preservation  and 
discovery  ?  Or  how  should  they  have  stood  the  test  of  other 
historical  documents,  such,  for  instance,  as  family  memoirs, 
some  of  whicli  reached  to  a  very  high  antiquity  ?  He  who 
believes  such  a  forgery  could  be  successfully  accomplished, 
believes  a  much  more  incredible  thing  than  the  preservation 
of  the  annals. 

Schwegler,  who  is  also  of  opinion  that  the  Annales  ]\[aximi 
had  been  faLsified,  supports  his  view  by  observing  that  the 
fragment  preserved  by  Gellius  2  betrays  "  a  tolerably  recent 
origin,"  and  adds  in  a  note :  "  As  this  fragment  occurred  in 
the  eleventh  book,  it  must  have  belonged  to  a  rather  early 
time,  and  therefore,  as  Becker  justly  remarks,^  the  smootli 
senarms,  '  Malum  consultum  consul  tori  pessimum  est,'  is  all 
the  more  striking.  In  genuine  annals  of  that  time,  a  rude 
Saturnian  verse  could  at  most  have  existed."  But  it  does  not 
follow  from  the  words  of  Gellius  that  the  verse  was  in  the 

^  Sec  Livy,  xl.  29  ;   Fliii.  H.  N.  xiii.  27.  2  c;.  ]],  Aiim.  10. 

^  Rnin.  Altcrth,  i.  JO.  Aiini.  1, 


XXXIV 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN   HISTORY. 


Annals.  The  passage  runs  as  follows  :  "  Tunc  igitur  quod  in 
Etniscos  haruspices  male  consultantes  animadversum  vindi- 
catumque  fuerat,  versus  hie  scite  factus  cantatusque  esse  a 
pueris  urbe  tot  a  fertur, 

"  '  Malum  consultum  coiisultori  pessimum  est.' 

Ea  liistoria  de  haruspicibus,  ac  de  versu  isto  senario,  scripta 
est  in  Annalibus  ^laxiniis  libro,  undecimo,  et  in  A^errii 
Flacei  libro  primo  Eeruni  memoria  dignarum."  The  story, 
then,  had  two  sources,  the  annals  and  the  work  of  Verrius 
llaecus.  The  account  of  the  haruspices,  who,  to  the  supposed 
detriment  of  the  city,  had  directed  the  statue  of  Codes  to  be 
placed  in  a  lower  position,  was  no  doul)t  found  in  the  annals  ; 
but  that  a  public  record  of  the  driest  kind  should  have  con- 
tained verses  is  altogether  incredible.  This  part  of  the  story 
Verrius  must  have  taken  from  another  source,  and  probably 
modernised  the  verse  in  the  transfer. 

Another  point  to  which  the  sceptical  critics  attach  gieat 
importance,  as  showing  the  non-existence  of  the  annals  at 
a  remote  date,  is  the  first  registration  of  an  eclipse  of  the 
sun.  This  point  is  urged,  after  Niebuhr,  by  Becker,  Schwegler, 
and  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis.  We  subjoin  what  the  last-named  writer 
says  :  ^ 

"  There  is  likewise  another  argument  against  the  existence 
of  a  complete  series  of  the  Annales  Maximi  from  a  remote 
date,  upon  which  Niebuhr  not  imdeservedly  lays  great 
stress.  Ennius,  as  quoted  by  Cicero,  spoke  of  an  eclipse  of 
the  sun  about  the  year  350  u.c.  assigning  its  natural  cause ; 
namely,  the  interposition  of  the  moon.  '  Now,'  says  Cicero,^ 
'  there  is  so  much  science  and  skill  in  this  matter,  that  from 
this  day,  which  we  perceive  to  be  recorded  in  Ennius,  and  in 
the  Annales  Maximi,  all  the  preceding  eclipses  have  been  cal- 
culated backwards,  up  to  that  which  occurred  on  the  Nones 
of  Quinctilis  in  the  reign  of  Eomulus,  when  Romulus  was 
really  slain  in  the  darkness,  though  he  was  fabled  to  have 
been  taken  up  to  heaven.'  Assuming  the  year  350  u.c.  to 
correspond  to  the  year  404  B.C. — fourteen  years  before  the 
1  Vol.  i.  p.  159.  2  De  Rep.  i.  16  ;  cf.  ii.  10. 


ANNALES    MAXIMI. 


XXXV 


capture  of  the  city — it  would  follow  that  there  was  no  con- 
temporary registration  of  eclipses  before  that  year ;  and  we 
observe  from  this  very  passage  of  Cicero  that  in  this  year  an 
eclipse  of  the  sun  was  recorded  in  the  Annales  Maximi. 
Eclipses,  moreover,  are  particularly  specified  in  the  fragment 
of  Cato  the  Censor — an  ancient  and  unimpeachable  witness 
to  such  a  fact — as  among  the  prominent  contents  of  the  pon- 
tifical annals  ;  and,  indeed,  without  any  specific  testimony, 
we  might  safely  assume  that  a  prodigy  so  rare  and  so  alarm- 
ing as  a  visible  eclipse,  and  one  necessarily  followed  by 
national  expiatory  ceremonies,  would  be  duly  entered  in  this 
public  record. 

"  Unluckily,  however,  in  this,  as  in  other  instances,  we  feel 
sensibly  the  defective  state  of  our  information  respecting  a 
point  of  early  history.  We  have  not  the  entire  passage  of 
Ennius  as  cited  by  Cicero,  and  we  cannot  ascertain  to  what 
year  he  alludes.  According  to  the  Varronian  era,  the  year 
350  u.c.  would  correspond  to  the  year  404  B.C.  ;  but  we  do 
not  know  what  era  Ennius  followed.  In  another  part  of  his 
Annales,  he  spoke  of  the  700th  year  after  the  building  of 
the  city,  tliough,  according  to  the  Varronian  date,  he  wrote 
about  the  year  582.'* 

"  Niebuhr  thinks  that  the  allusion  is  to  a  solar  eclipse,  visible 
in  the  ^lediterranean,  which  occurred  on  the  21st  of  June,  in 
the  astronomical  year  399  B.C.  This  eclipse,  however,  was 
not  visible  at  Eome,  though  at  Cadiz  the  middle  of  the  eclipse 
fell  three  minutes  before  sunset.  Niebuhr  believes  that  the 
Eomans  derived  information  from  Gades  of  the  day  and  hour 
when  it  occurred,  and  that  this  eclipse,  visible  at  the  extremity 
of  Spain,  but  invisible  in  Italy,  is  the  eclipse  alluded  to  by 
Ennius." 

"  If  this  event  had  occurred  during  the  Second  l*unic  War, 
it  would  be  conceivable  that  the  Eomans  might  have  had 
precise  information  respecting  the  circumstances  of  an  eclipse 
which  was  only  just  visible  at  Gades  ;  but  that  in  the  year 
399  B.C.  during  the  siege  of  Yeii,  nine  years  before  the  Gallic 
invasion,  they  should  have  known  and  thought  so  nnich  about 
an  eclipse  in  that  place  as  to  afford  the  subject  of  an  allusion 


XXXVl 


SOURCES   OF   KOMAN   HISTORY. 


to  Eimius  more  than  two  centuries  afterwards,  is  utterly 
incredible.  The  Eomans  did  not  obtain  a  footing  in  Sj^ain, 
or  acquire  any  accurate  knowledge  of  it,  until  after  the  First 
Punic  war.  'No  allusion  to  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  about  the 
year  350  u.c.  occurs  in  any  of  the  historians,  and  therefore 
it  seems  impossible  to  fix  the  year  of  the  eclipse  to  which 
Ennius  alludes. 

"  Thus  much,  however,  we  may  infer  from  the  passage  in 
Cicero, — namely,  that  the  eclipses  which  had  taken  place  at 
Eome  in  the  hrst  centuries  of  the  city,  had  not  been  recorded 
in  the  pontifical  annals,  or  in  any  other  register,  and  that 
before  the  time  of  Cicero  some  attempts  had  been  made, 
with  such  rude  processes  as  the  ancient  astronomers  were 
possessed  of,  to  calculate  those  unregistered  eclipses  back- 
wards. That  the  computation  was  not  a  scientific  one  may 
be  inferred  from  the  attempt  to  calculate  the  year  in  which  the 
eclipse  of  Romulus  occurred — an  event  wholly  fabulous,  and 
apparently  not  admitted  into  the  most  current  version  of  the 
story  of  his  death  or  apotheosis." 

In  this  view  of  the  matter  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  blindly  follows 
his  German  guides,  who  have  misled  him  partly  by  not 
giving  a  full  and  fair  account  of  it,  and  partly,  as  in  a  former 
instance,  by  mistranslating  a  common  Latin  sentence.  Had 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  turned  to  the  chapter  of  Cicero  which  he 
quotes  (De  Eep.  i.  16),  he  would  have  seen  that  the  German 
critics  have  suppressed  a  very  material  part  of  it.  Cicero 
there  alludes  to  an  eclipse  which  terrified  the  Athenians  in 
the  Peloponnesian  war,  in  the  lifetime  of  Pericles,^  who  is 
said  to  have  dissipated  their  alarm  by  explaining  to  them  the 
true  nature  of  the  phenomenon,  which  he  had  learnt  from 
his  teacher  Anaxagoras.  The  eclipse  at  Athens  appears  to 
have  taken  place  in  the  first  year  of  the  war,  or  B.C.  431.  ; 
that  at  Ptome,  as  we  have  seen,  in  B.C.  404,  according  to  the 
received  chronology  ;  or,  if  this  chronology  should  have  to  be 
reduced  according  to  a  principle  w^hich  will  be  explained  in 
the  sequel,  some  ten  years  later.  Thus  it  appears  that  a  i)hc- 
nomenon  which  first  became  commonly  understood  at  Athens 

^  Jt  ^ecnis  to  l)c  (lie  rrlip.sc  iiu'iitioind  ].y  Tlmrydidcs,  ii.  ■j.S. 


AXXALES  MAxnn. 


XXXV 11 


in  B.C.  431,  began  to  be  known  at  Pome  some  twenty-eight  or 
thirty-eight  years  later. 

Now  here  we  have  a  very  natural  explanation  why  this 
should  have  been  the  first  eclipse  recorded,  in  its  true  nature 
as  an  cclijm,  in  the  Annales  Maximi.  l*revious  eclipses 
could  not  have  been  recorded,  because  they  were  not  known 
to  be  such.  But  the  matter  being  ]iow  reduced,  as  Cicero 
says,  ^'to  science  and  skill,"  previous  eclipses  could  be 
reckoned  backwards  to  that  which  luippened  at  the  death 
of  Pomulus.  Before  this  time,  eclipses  could  not  have  been 
predicted  hy  the  Pomans,  because  the  theory  of  tlunn  was 
not  understood.  Hence  they  would  often  have  passed  un- 
observed, especially  wdien  partial,  and  even  total  ones  when 
the  weather  was  cloudy;  and,  when  observed,  the  phenomenon 
would  not  have  been  attributed  to  its  right  cause,  nor  called 
by  its  right  name,  but  would  have  been  ascribed  to  a  cloud, 
or  to  some  unknown  cause.  Thus,  while  Cicero  attributes 
the  darkness  at  the  death  of  Pomulus  to  an  eclipse,  Livy,^ 
following  no  doubt  the  old  annals,  ascribes  it  to  a  storm. 

This  view  is  corroborated  by  the  passage  from  Cato,  which 
these  critics  mistranslate:  "JN^'on  lubet  scribere  quod  in 
tubula  apud  Pontificem  Maximum  est,  quotiens  annona  cara, 
quotiens  luna?,  aut  solis  lumini  caligo  aut  quid  obstiterit."  - 
These  words  do  not  mean,  as  Niebuhr  and  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
represent,  that  the  Pontifex  Maximus  recorded  eclijises  of  the 
sun.  Their  literal  meaning  is  :  "I  do  not  like  to  write  such 
things  as  we  see  in  the  tablet  of  the  Pontifex  JNIaximus ;  as 
^vhQu  corn  was  dear,  o;-  I'jJten  a  darkness,  or  sornething  or 
another,  intercepted  the  light  of  the  moon  or  sun."  The  mis- 
translation is  the  more  unpardonable,  as  Gellius  proceeds  to 
remark  :  "  So  little  did  Cato  care  to  know  or  tell  the  true 
causes  of  the  obscuration  of  the  sun  and  moon"  ("Usque 
adeo  parvi  fecit  rationes  veras  solis  et  luna3  deficientium 
vel  scire  vel  dicere"). 

Now  let  us  observe  that  this  rude  and  unscientific  mode 
of  noting  eclipses  could  liardly  have  been  used  after  their 
true  nature  was  understood  at  Pome,— that  is,  after  the  vear 


^  Li^.  i.  16. 


2  Orirj.  ap.  (Joll.  ii.  21, 


XX  XVI 11 


sour(;es  of  komax  histoiiv. 


AXXALES    MAXIMI. 


XXX IX 


B.C.  403;  and  Cato,  therefore,  must  be  referrino-  to  entries  in 
the  annals  made  previously  to  that  date,  wliicli  he  selected 
apparently  for  their  ignorance  and  uncouthness.     The  yeju- 
mentioned  by  Cicero  as  tliat  of   the  first    scientific   record 
of  eclipses  in  the  Annales   :\Iaxinii  ascends  thirteen  years 
above  the   Gallic  capture ;  aud,  as  Cicero  says  that  he  had 
seen  this  entry  with  his  own  eyes—"  cpiem  diem  in  jNIaximis 
Anualibus   consignatum  videmus'' — we    have    here   another 
proof,  in  addition  to  those  already  cited  from  the  same  author, 
that  the  annals  snrvived  the  conflagration.      But  the  passage 
from  Cato,  for  the  reason  assigned,  carries  ns  np  to  a  much 
earlier   period,  and    confirms    the    existence  of    very    early 
Annales  ^Nlaximi,  by    one    of  those    traits    of  careless  truth 
which  it  is  impossible  to  invent ;  namely,  that  no  eclipses 
were  recorded  in  them  before  the  year  mentioned,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  the  theory  of  them  was  not  understood  ; 
and   therefore,    when   the   darkness    which   tliey    occasioned 
w^as  observed,  it  was  attributed  to  "  something  or  another  " 
unknown. 

We  need  not  discuss  Mebuhr's  notion  that  the  eclipse 
alluded  to  by  Cicero  may  have  been  one  partially  visible  at 
Cadiz.  No  critic  out  of  Germany  would  imagine  that  the 
Romans  would  have  recorded  an  eclipse  which  they  had  not 
seen,  even  allowing  it  to  be  possible  that  they  might  have 
heard  of  it.  But  if,  as  we  shall  atteuipt  to  show  further  ou, 
the  Ptoman  year  consisted  for  a  long  period  of  only  ten 
months,  then  the  eclipse  nmst  be  sought  at  a  later  time  than 
that  mentioned. 

We  have  already  remarked,  with  regard  to  Schwegler's 
assertion  that  we  do  not  find  in  the  historians  any  trace  of 
the  direct  use  of  the  annals,  that  it  is  impossible  to  say 
whether  they  used  them  dircdhj  or  not.  But  we  may  affirm, 
without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  there  are  numberless 
passages  in  the  historians  which  must  either  have  been  taken 
directly  from  the  annals,  or  at  all  events  from  earlier  writers 
who  had  so  taken  them.  The  account  of  the  treaty  with  the 
Albans  in  tlie  reign  of  TuUus  Hostilius,^  which  gives  the 

J   l.ivv,  i.  24. 


names  of  the  Fetialis  and  of  the  Pater  Patratus,  could  hardlv 
have  been  derived  from  any  other  source.  In  like  manner, 
we  find  the  names  of  the  Albans  who  were  made  patricians.^ 
Another  proof  is  the  prodigies  recorded  in  the  regal  period 
and  before  the  burning  of  the  city.-  Further,  the  accounts 
of  jH^stilences,  famines,  droughts,  dearness  of  provisions,  and 
other  matters  which  affect  the  domestic  life  of  the  city,  which 
occur  in  the  first  five  books  down  to  the  Gallic  conflagration, 
and  througli  the  remainder  of  the  decade,  prove  tliat  the 
Annales  Maximi,  the  proper  register  of  such  casualties,  must 
have  continued  extant.  There  are  more  pestilences  and 
famines  recorded  in  Livy's  first  decade  than  in  any  of  the 
rest,  and  nearly  half  of  them  occur  in  the  first  ?l\q  books. 
Thus  we  read  of  pestilences  in  the  reign  of  Tullus  Hostilius, 
and  in  B.C.  4Go  ;  in  one  accompanied  witli  famine,  which 
occurred  in  B.C.  453,  the  names  of  several  distinguished 
persons  who  died  of  it  are  recorded  ;  as  8er.  Cornelius,  the 
Flamen  Quirinalis,  Horatius  Pul villus,  an  augur,  the  Consul 
Quinctilius,  and  three  tribunes  of  the  people.'^  Such  par- 
ticulars could  not  have  been  })reserved  but  by  contemporary 
registration.  It  would  be  monstrous  to  suppose  that  Pom  an 
annalists  made  them  out  of  their  own  heads  two  or  tln-ee 
centuries  afterwards.  Such  barefaced  for^feries  in  an  a^^e 
that  had  little  or  no  literature,  and  when  consequently  nothin<i- 
was  to  be  gained  by  them,  cannot  for  a  moment  be  supposed. 
It  is  not  very  material  whether  Verrius  Flaccus  was  or 
was  not  the  last  who  had  tlie  Annales  ]\raxinii  in  his  hands  ; 
for,  as  that  writer  lived  in  the  age  of  Augustus,  they  woukl 
at  all  events  have  survived  long  enough  for  the  i)ur|)Oses  of 
authentic  history.  But  we  do  not  see  how  this  opinion  can 
be  reconciled  with  the  following  passage  from  Pliny:  "  In- 
venitur  statua  decreta  et  Taracia)  Gaiie,  sive  Sufletise,  viririni 
vestali,  ut  poneretur  ubi  vellet  ;   quod  adjectum  non  minus 

1  Livy,  i.  30. 

2  Ibid.  i.  31,  55,  56  ;  ii.  7,  42  ;  iii.  5,  10,  29  ;  iv.  21,  &c.  Others  also  in 
Dioiiysius.  Yet  Niebiilir  asserts  (L'-ctures,  vol.  i.  p.  16)  that  ''no  prodigit-s 
are  mentioned  by  lAvy  before  the  burning  of  the  city  by  the  Gauls  !" 

^  Livy,  iii.  32:  cf.  i.  31  ;  ii.  9,  34  ;  iii.  6  ;  iv.  21,  25,  30  ;  v.  13 ;  vii.  1,  2,  &o. 


i 


fl*' 


xl 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


THE   COMMEXTARII   PONTIFICUM. 


xll 


honoris  habet,  quod  femina3  esse  decretam.  Meritiim  ejus 
in  ipsis  ponam  Annalium  verbis  :  Quod  canipuni  Tiberiuuiii 
gratificata  esset  ea  po])u]o."  ^  To  quote  the  ijmssima  verha 
of  the  decree  woukl  have  been  absurd  had  not  VYwry  taken 
them  for  some  official  source.  Auhis  Gellius  also  mentions 
that  the  name  of  Caia  Taratia  appeared  "  in  antiquis  anna- 
libus."  "^  On  tlie  M'hole,  the  Annales  IVfaximi  having  been 
edited  and  pul)lished,  tliere  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why 
they  may  not  have  existed  till  a  Lite  period  of  the  emj^ire ; 
and  they  were  evidently  seen  by  Servius. 

The  Annales  Maximi  woukl  have  established  the  leading 
historical  facts  of  the  regal  period  ;  the  names  of  the  kings 
and  their  order  of  succession,  at  all  events  from  the  time 
of  Tullus  Hostilius,  and  the  principal  events  of  their  reigns. 
AVe  will  gi'ant  that  they  would  not  have  sufficed  to  make 
any  perfect  history ;  nor  have  we  any  perfect  history.  The 
chronology  would  have  been  confused,  l)ecause  there  would 
have  been  nothing  to  distinguish  the  different  years  of  a 
reign,  subsequently  so  well  marked  by  the  annual  consulship. 
From  this  circumstance  Schwe^ler  has  been  led  to  conclude 
that  registration  did  not  begin  till  the  time  of  the  republic  ; 
but  in  fact  this  amended  chronology  is  only  the  natural 
consequence  of  the  altered  form  of  government.  The  true 
inference  lies  the  other  way.  The  fact  that  we  have  the 
names  of  the  consuls  resj^istered  immediatelv  on  the  establish- 
ment  of  the  republic  affords  good  ground  for  inferring  that 
registration  was  still  more  ancient ;  that  it  was  nothing  but 
the  continuation  of  a  practice  l)efore  observed  under  the 
kings,  but  rendered  more  conspicuous  through  its  chrono- 
logical definition  by  the  annually  elected  consuls. 

Besides  the  Annales  Maximi,  another  source  of  historv  w\as 
the  books  kept  by  the  subordinate  pontiffs,  called  Commentarii 
Pontificum.  Yopiscus  alludes  to  the  Pontiiices  being  the 
regular  historiographers  of  the  city,  as  follows :  "  Quod  post 
excessum  Eomuli,  novello  adhuc  Piomanie  urbis  imperio, 
factum,  pontifices,  penes  quos  scribendaB  histori?e  potestas 
fuit,  in  literas  retulerunt,  ut  interregnum,  dum  post  bonum 


MA 


[li^ 


principem  bonus  alius  quix^ritur,  iniretur."  ^  Yopiscus  cannot 
here  allude  to  the  Annales  AFaximi,  to  which  the  name  of 
history  cannot  be  a])propriately  given  ;  nor  was  the  making 
of  those  annals  intrusted  to  tlie  I'ontifioes  generally,  but  only 
to  the  I'ontifex  Maximus.  Xor  would  the  Annales  Maximi 
have  recorded  the  interregnum  after  the  death  of  Ptomulus, 
because  there  was  no  pontificate,  and  consequently  no  con- 
temporary record,  till  the  time  of  Numa  at  least. 

We  will  now  endeavour  to  show  that  the  Commentarii  I'on- 
tificum  were  not  only  history,  but  also  retrospective  history. 

Canuleius,    in   a   speech   to   the    plebs   a.u.c.    310,    says  : 
"  01)secro  vos,  si  non  ad  fastos,  non  ad  Commentarios  Ponti- 
ficum admittimiu^ ;  ne  ea  quidem  scimus,  qua^  omnes  peregrini 
etiam  sciunt  ?  consules  in  locum  regum  succossisse  ?  nee  ant 
juris  aut  majestatis  quicquam  habere  quod  non  in  regilms 
ante  fuerit."^     He  then  proceeds  to  instance  a  great  many 
facts  of  Pioman  history  up  to  the  time  of  Romulus.     ''Do 
we  not  know,"  he  says,  "that  the  kings  were  succeeded  by 
consuls  who  inherited  their  prerogative  ;  that   I^uma   Pom- 
pilius  was  not  only  no  patrician,  but   not  even   a  Eoman 
citizen ;  that  L.  Tarquinius  was  a  Corinthian,  Servius  Tullius 
the    son    of    a   captive?   &c.     Do    we    not   know   all   this, 
although  we  plebeians  are  not  admitted  to  the  Commentarii 
Pontificum?"  which  must  therefore  have  been  substantially 
a  Eoman  history ;  and  a  retrospective  one,  as  they  entered 
into  the  genealogy  of  Numa.     And  though  the  plebeians  were 
not  allowed  to  see  these  commentaries,  the  facts  no  doubt 
transpired   through   the    patricians :    the   principal   ones,   it 
appears,  were  known  even  to  foreigners,  and  nuist  therefore 
have  been  familiar  to  the  great  body  of  the  Eoman  citizens. 

Passages  in  Dionysius  also  show  that  these  commentaries 
were  both  historical  and  retrospective.  ''  The  Eomans,"  says 
that  writer,^  "have  not  a  single  ancient  historian,  or  prose 
author ;  but,  from  ancient  accounts  preserved  in  their  sacred 
books  {Iv  lepaU  BeXroit;),  each  of  their  writers  formed  his 
narrative."  The  "  sacred  books  "  here  mentioned  could  liave 
been  no  other  than  Commentarii  Pontificum  alluded  to  by 


^  II.  X.  xxxiv.  11. 


2  Lib.  vi.  7,  1. 


1  Vit.  Tac.  1. 


2  Liv.  iv.  .3. 

a 


^  Lib.  i.  73. 


xlii 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


THE    COMMKNTARII    PONTIFK'UM. 


xliii 


Caimleius.  The  account  of  Dionysius  shows  that  they  con- 
tained the  Latin  traditions  concerning  tlie  descent  of  Ronnihis; 
a  subject  to  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  revert  in  the 
body  of  this  w^ork.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  Dionysius 
is  referring  to  the  same  work,  under  the  name  of  al  tmv 
lepo^avT(hv  jpacpal,  as  recording  the  apparition  of  the  god- 
dess Fortune ;  ^  and  also  under  the  name  of  fiil3\oi  lepal  koX 
a-TToOeroL,  wdien  he  quotes  tliem  on  a  question  Avhether  there 
w^ere  consuls  or  military  tribunes. ^  In  the'last  case  Schwegler^ 
takes  him  to  mean  the  Libri  Lintei ;  but  these  were  neither 
sacred  nor  secret. 

The   German  critics   have   not   rightly   apprehended    the 
nature  of  these  books  :  as,  for  instance,  wdien  Niebuhr  says 
that  they  were  an  exposition  of  the  early  Eoman  constitu- 
tion related  in  law  cases  ;  "^  or  when  Becker  describes  them 
as  containing  all  that  concerned,  immediately  or  remotely, 
the  Pontifices  themselves  and  their  office ;  ^  or  when  Schwegler 
characterises  them  as  a  collection  of  cases  out  of  the  old 
political  and  sacerdotal  law,  with  the  decisions  of  the  Pon- 
tifices,— in  short,  a  collection  of  precedents,  wdiicli  served  as 
general  rules  of  law  for  judges.^    Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  also  regards 
them  in  the  same  light.      *'Tlie  conjecture,"  he  observes,"^ 
"wdiicli  Niebuhr  makes  as  to  the  contents  of  these  books 
is  probably  not  far  from  the  truth :  '  We  can  only  conceive 
them,'  he  says,  *  to  have  been  collections  of  traditions,  decisions, 
and  decrees,  laying  down   principles   of  law   by   reporting 
particular  cases.' " 

That  civil  and  religious  usages  were  noted  in  the  Com- 
mentarii  Pontificum  we  do  not  mean  to  deny.  We  see 
from  Pliny  that  they  contained  a  precept  for  taking  the 
Auo'urium  Canarium :  "  Ita  enim  est  in  Commentariis  Pon- 
tificum :  augurio  canario  agendo  dies  constituatur,  priusquam 


1  Lib.  viii.  56.  ^  li^,  xi.  62.  ^  b,  i  g^  j;^  ^^^^^  ^^ 

*  Yortrage  iiber  Rom.  Gesch.  ap.  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  33,  Anm.  8. 

^  "  Die  Pontitices  noch  besondere  Biicher  fiilirten,  in  denen  sie  alles  auf- 
zeichneten,  was  in  nalierem  oder  entfernterem  l^eznge  aiif  sie  und  ihr  Amt 
geschah."— Kom.  Alterth.  i.  S.  12. 

«  Riim.  Oeseh.  B.  i  S.  33.  ^  Credibility,  &t'.  vol.  i.  p.  171. 


/•-, 
*'#' 


'."** 


•J.- 


■t*i  - 


frumenta  vaginis  exeunt,  et  ante(|uani  in  vaginas  pcr- 
veniant."  ^  Put,  thougli  such  notices  may  occasionally  occur, 
Becker  seems  right  in  remarking  tliat  the  Gommentarii  are 
quoted  /or  facts,  while  from  the  Libri  Pontificii — a  distinct 
w^ork — only  religious  propositions  are  adduced.-  Facts,  for 
instance,  like  the  follow^ing  are  not  likely  to  have  been  found 
in  a  mere  collection  of  legal  rules  and  precedents:  "(Possuuius 
suspicari  disertum)  Tib.  Coruncanium,  quod  ex  Pontificum 
Commentariis  longe  plurimum  ingenio  valuisse  videatur" 
(Cic.  Brut.  14,  55) :  "  Habetis  in  commentariis  vestris  C. 
Cassium  Censorem  de  signo  Concordiae  dedicando  ad  pon- 
titicum  collegium  retulisse,  ei  M.  ^milium  l^ontificem  ^laxi- 
mum,  pro  collegio  respondisse"  {Idem,  Pro  Dom.  53,  136). 
In  fact,  the  very  name  commcntarius  seems  to  indicate  some- 
thing more  than  a  book  of  precedents,  for,  as  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
remarks :  -^  "  Commentaries  means  a  memoir,  memorial,  note, 
or  memorandum.  Hence  it  may  be  applied  to  historical 
memoirs,  such  as  those  of  Julius  CsBsar,  whose  two  w^orks  are 
entitled  Commentarii.  And  in  this  sense  it  is  equivalent  to 
the  Greek  vTrofjuvij/xaTaf' 

But  the  strongest  proof  that  the  Commentarii  Pontificum 
contained  historical  matter  may  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that 
Livy  names  them  first  in  enumerating  the  sources  of  history 
destroyed  by  the  Gallic  fire.  He  is  explaining — we  miglit 
almost  say  making  a  sort  of  apology — how  he  had  included 
the  history  of  the  city  down  to  its  burning  by  the  Gauls  in 
only  five  books  ;  which  he  ascribes  to  the  obscurity  naturally 
attaching  to  great  antiquity,  and  to  the  rarity  of  literary 
documents  in  those  early  ages.  *'  These,"  he  observes,  "whetlier 
contained  in  the  Commentarii  Pontificum,  or  in  other  public  or 
private  monuments,  for  the  most  part  perislied  wdien  the  city 
w^as  burnt."  ("  Et  quod  etiamsi  quce  (literse)  in  Commentariis 
Pontificum  aliisque  publicis  privatisque  erant  monumentis, 
incensa  urbe  plera^que  interiere,"  Lib.  vi.  1.)     These  com- 

1  H.  N.  viii.  3,  3. 

2  "  AVenigstens  ist  es  anfFallend  dass  aus  den  Libris  Pontifieiis  nur  religiose 
Satziingen  angefiihrt,  die  Commentarii  nur  in  Bczug  auf  Thatsachen  genannt 
werden."-S.  12,  Anm.  IS.  ^  Vol.  i.  p.  169,  note  125. 

(J  2 


I 't*.' 


xliv 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN   HISTORY. 


mentaries  are  here  specifically  named  and  put  prominently 
forward  as  one  of  the  principal  sources  for  the  early  history, 
thus  confirming  the  testimony  of  Vopiscus,  with  which  we 
headed  this  branch  of  the  inquiry. 

This  account  suggests  one  or  two  reflections,  and  the 
first  and  most  important  is,  that  the  history  of  Eome  down 
to  its  burning  by  the  Gauls  did  not  rest  on  orcd  tradition. 
The  principal  events  had  been  recorded :  first,  on  their 
occurrence,  in  the  journal  of  the  Pontifex  [Maximus,  or  the 
Annates  Maximi ;  and  secondly,  they  had  been  afterwards 
reduced  to  a  more  regular  historical  form  by  the  other 
pontifices. 

Before  proceeding  further,  we  will  turn  for  a  moment  to 
what  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  says  respecting  the  materials  for  early 
Eoman  histoiy.      "We  have,"  he  observes,^  "in  the  three 
preceding  chapters,   attempted  to   ascertain  what  were   the 
materials  for  the  formation  of  a  narrative   of  early  Eoman 
history  at  the  command  of  Fabius  Pictor,  Cincius,  and  Cato 
when  they  began  to  write  their  accounts  of  that  period  in  the 
Second  Punic  War.     We  have  found  that  there  was  a  con- 
tinuous list  of  annual  magistrates  more  or  less  complete  and 
authentic,  ascending  to  the  commencement  of  the  consular 
government ;  that  from  the  burning  of  the  city  there  was 
a  series  of  meagre  official  annals  kept  by  the  chief  pontiffs  ; 
that  many  ancient  treaties  and  texts  of  law — including  the 
laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables — were  preserved ;  together  with 
notes  of  ancient  usages  and  rules  of  customary  law — both 
civil  and  religious — recorded  in  the  books  of  the  pontiffs  and 
some  of  the  civil  magisti*ates ;  and  that  these  documentary 
sources  of  history,  which  furnished  merely  the  dry  skeleton 
of  a  narrative,  were  clothed  with  flesh  and  muscle  by  the 
addition  of  various  stories  handed  down  from  preceding  times 
by  oral  tradition.     Some  assistance  may  have  been  derived 
from   popular   songs,  and  still  more  from   family  memoirs  ; 
but  there  is  nothing  to  show  or  make  it  probable  that  private 
families  began  to   record  the  deeds  of  their  distinguished 

1  Vol.  i.  ch.  vii.  p.  243. 


-ri  J" 


1^ 
P 


8 

If 
III 


P^ 


Ml 
1 1 


# 


,  M^ 


THE   COMMENTARII   RONTIFICUM. 


xlv 


members  before  any  chronicler  had  arisen  for  the  events 
which  interested  the  commonwealth  as  a  whole. 

"  The  essential  characteristic  of  the  history  of  the  first  four 
and  a  half  centuries  of  Piome — so  far  as  it  deserves  the  name 
of  history,  and  is  a  veracious  relation  of  real  events — is,  that 
it  was  not  reduced  into  a  narrative  form  by  contemporary 
writers,  but  that  the  account  of  it  was  drawn  up  at  a  later 
period  from  such  fragmentary  materials  as  we  have  just 
described." 

In  examining  this  passage  we  wdll  confine  ourselves  to 
what  is  said  about  the  Annates  Maximi  and  the  Commentarii 
Pontificum.  It  is  supposed  that  the  first  of  these  were  not 
extant  higher  than  the  burning  of  the  city  ;  that  the  Com- 
mentaries of  the  priests  w^ere  nothing  but  "  notes  of  ancient 
usages  and  rules  of  customary  law ; "  that  the  history  had 
not  been  "reduced  into  a  narrative  form  by  contemporary 
writers,"  but  that  such  a  narrative  was  first  framed  at  a 
later  period — that  is,  in  the  time  of  Fabius  Pictor,  Cincius, 
and  Cato — from  the  fragmentary  materials  described,  and 
by  adding  to  them  various  stories  handed  down  by  oral 
tradition, 

Now,  we  submit  that  this  account  of  the  matter  is  totally 
at  variance  with  all  that  can  be  gathered  from  ancient  testi- 
mony. We  have  shown  that  evidence  almost  unanimously 
favours  the  preservation  of  the  Annates  Maximi;  that  only 
one  insinuation  from  an  obscure  writer  mentioned  by  Plu- 
tarch can  be  produced  against  it ;  and  that  even  this  insinu- 
ation more  probably  refers  to  the  Commentarii  than  to  the 
Annates.  We  have  also  shown  from  the  testimony  of  Livy 
and  Dionysius  that  the  Commentaries  were  something  more 
than  notes  of  ancient  usages,  for  in  that  case  how  could  Canu- 
leius  have  adverted  to  them  as  containing  the  facts  of  Eoman 
history  ?  Or  how  could  Livy  have  set  them  down  as  the  prin- 
cipal authority  for  it  ?  Or  Dionysius  have  quoted  them  for 
the  history  of  the  foundation  of  the  city?  There  is  no 
ground,  therefore,  for  the  assertion  that  the  history  had  not 
been  reduced  into  a  narrative  form  by  contemporary,  or  at 
all  events  very  early  writers,  though  not  for  the  purpose  of 


#1 ; 


xlvi 


SOURCES   OF  ROMAN    HISTORY. 


THE   COMMENT ARII   PONTIFICUM. 


xlvii 


publication.  Everything  tends  to  show  that  the  Poutilices  had 
conmienced  a  connected  lustorical  narrative  soon  after  their 
institution,  and  at  least  in  the  time  of  Tullus  llustilius,  so 
that  the  only  reigns  which  rested  upon  oral  tradition  would 
have  been  those  of  Eomulus,  and  partly  perhaps  of  Nunia. 
And  this  period  of  about  half  a  century  was  so  recent  that 
the  description  of  it  by  the  Pontifices  may  almost  be  called 
contemporary,  since  it  was  not  beyond  the  memory  of  man, 
but  well  within  the  period  fixed  by  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  and 
others  as  the  limit  of  authentic  oral  tradition. 

Well,  then,  if  the  principal  affairs  down  to  the  burning  of 
the  city  had  been  recorded  in  writing,  the  oral  tradition  of 
which  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  speaks  as  forming  the  chief  founda- 
tion for  the  narratives  of  the  first  literary  annalists  would 
have  taken  its  date  from  that  catastrophe,  and  not  from  the 
time  when  the  events  occurred ;  so  that  oral  tradition  would 
have  been  responsible  for  less  than  two  centuries,  instead,  for 
iustance,  of  three  centuries  up  to  the  expulsion  of  the  kings, 
or  four  centuries  and  a  half  up  to  the  reign  of  Tullus  Hos- 
tilius.  But  can  it  be  believed  that  a  people  which  had  a  con- 
nected history  of  their  affairs  in  writing  dowui  to  the  burning 
of  their  city,  should  have  made  no  attempt  to  restore  it  while 
it  was  fresh  in  their  minds  ?  that  a  nation  so  proud  of  its 
former  glories  should  have  suffered  them  to  sink  into  oblivion, 
or,  what  is  about  the  same  thing,  should  have  intrusted  them 
to  oral  tradition  alone,  although  they  still  continued  to  record 
in  writing  the  events  which  occurred  after  the  fire?  and 
that  they  should  do  this,  although  they  were  at  the  greatest 
pains  to  recover  their  domestic  laws  and  their  foreign  treaties, 
and  even  published  some  of  them  for  general  use  ?  ^  Or 
could  these  laws  and  these  treaties  have  been  fully  under- 
stood unless  illustrated  by  some  narrative  ^setting  forth  the 
occasions  of  them  ? 

Fortunately,  however,  we  are  not  reduced  to  an  appeal  to 
probability  in  support  of  the  assumption  that  the  Pontifices 

^  "Imprimis  fct'derti  ac  leges  (erant  aiitem  e;e  duodecim  talmlte  et  quaidam 
regia^  leges)  conqiiiri,  qujB  compararent,  jiisseiiint :  alia  ex  iis  edita  etiam 
ill  vulgiis." — Liv.  vi.  1. 


"«as« ': 


P  'j? 


te^^'j 


restored  the  history.  The  passage  in  Dionysius,  to  which 
we  have  already  referred  ^  as  taken  from  ''  the  sacred  books," 
exhibits  them  as  tracing  the  descent  of  Eomulus  and  relating 
occurrences  before  the  building  of  the  city.  Dionysius,  it 
is  true,  does  not  quote  them  directly,  or  from  personal  inspec- 
tion, but  he  says  that  the  Pioman  historians  of  later  times 
took  their  accounts  from  these  books.  They  must,  therefore, 
have  named  them  as  their  sources,  which  is  as  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  their  existence,  and  of  the  nature  of  their  contents, 
as  if  Dionysius  himself  had  quoted  them  at  first  hand. 

We  are  willing,  however,  to  allow  all  due  force  to  the 
objection  that  books  thus  restored  from  memory  were  not  of 
equal  value  with  the  originals  as  historical  memorials  ;  and 
this  circumstance  may  even  have  lent  a  colour  to  the  charge 
of  that  "certain  Clodius"  that  the  books  so  restored  were 
altogether  false  and  forged.     We  will  even  concede  that  the 
Pontifices  may  have  used  the  opportunity  to  introduce  a  few 
apocryphal  stories  to  the  advantage  of  Eoman  glory  and  of 
their  own  priestcraft,  and  especially  that  it  may  have  been  on 
this  occasion  that  the  story  of  the  descent  of  Eomulus  from 
iEneas  was  introduced ;  though,  at  the  same  time,  the  true 
account  was  faithfully  recorded  of  his  having  been  the  son, 
or  grandson,  of  some  Greek  who  had  landed  on  the  coast. 
But  of  this  we  shall  have  to  speak  in  the  sequel.     In  spite, 
however,  of  a  few  interpolations  of  this  sort,  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  main  outlines  of  the  history  were  faithfully 
recorded,  so  far  as  memory  served.    And  memory  would  have 
been  aided,  as  well  as  checked,  by  memorials  which  had  not 
been  destroyed,  or  which  had  been  recovered ;  such  as  the 
Annales  Maximi,  laws,  treaties,  inscriptions,  private  memoirs, 
funeral  orations,  public  buildings  and  monuments,  &c.      As 
w^e  learn  from  a  passage  in  Livy,  before  quoted,  that  even 
foreigners  were  acquainted  with  the  history  of  Eome,  we  may 
conclude  that  a  knowledge  of  it  was  too  widely  spread  and 
too  deeply  rooted  among  the  Eomans  themselves   to   have 
admitted  any  very  important  alterations.     The  share,  more- 
over, which  the  great  patrician  houses  had  in  the  history  of 

1  Lib.  i.  c.  73. 


xlviri 


SOCliCES    OF   KOMAN    IIISTOliY. 


THE   COMMENTAUII    PONTIFICUM. 


xlix 


their  country  Avoiild  have  iii.'ule  them  jealous  and  vigihint 
critics  of  the  narrative,  and  tlius  have  prevented  the  ponti- 
fical scrihes  from  deviating  very  far  from  the  truth.. 

After  all,  however,  Livy's  account  of  what  wus  lost  in 
the  fire  is  very  vague.  The  plirase  "plerieque  interiere" 
may  allow  of  anything  short  of  half,  including  half  the  Com- 
mentarii,  being  saved,  and  we  all  know  with  "what  licence 
such  terms  as  more  or  most  are  used.  Niebuhr  observes  that 
Livy's  statement  on  this  subject  "  is  only  half  correct,  or 
rather  altogether  false,  and  gives  us  an  erroneous  idea  of  the 
early  history,"  adding,  "  When  Livy,  sx^eaking  of  the  times 
previous  to  the  burning  of  the  city,  says,  'per  ilia  temporcc 
littercB  rarcc  erant,  this  is  one  of  those  notions  in  which  he 
was  misled  by  opinions  prevalent  in  his  own  age,  and  which 
are  only  partially  true."  ^  When  Mebuhr,  however,  makes 
Livy  say  that  "all  written  documents  wTre  destroyed  in 
the  burning  of  the  city,"  and  that  '*  history  was  lianded 
down  solely  by  tradition,"  this  is  founded  only  on  his  own 
misconstruction  of  Livy's  words. 

There  are  passages  in  Livy,  relating  to  events  previous  to 
the  Gallic  conflagration,  so  dry  and  annalistic  in  their  form 
that  they  seem  to  have  been  taken  directly  from  these  ancient 
books,  or,  at  all  events,  through  the  earliest  literary  annalists. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  following  passage :  "  Agitatum  in 
urbe  a  tribunis  plebis  ut  tribuni  militum  consulari  potestate, 
crearentur  ;  nee  obtineri  potuit.  Consules  fiunt  L.  Papirius 
Crassus,  L.  Julius,  ^quorum  legati  fcedus  ab  senatu  quum 
petissent,  et  pro  foedere  deditio  ostentaretur,  indutias  annorum 
octo  impetraverunt.  Volscorum  res,  super  acceptam  in  Algido 
cladem,  pertinaci  certamine  inter  pacis  bellique  auctores  i]i 
jiirgia  et  seditiones  versa.  Undique  otium  fait  Eomanis. 
Legem  de  mulctarum  cestimatione,  pergratam  populo,  quum 
ab  tribunis  parari  consules  unius  ex  collegis  proditione  exce- 
pissent,  ipsi  pra30ccupaverunt  ferre.  Consules  L.  Sergius 
Fidenas  iterum,  Hostus  Lucretius  Tricipitinus.  Nihil  dignum 
dictu  actum  his  consul ibus.  Secuti  eos  consules  A.  Corne- 
lius Cossus,  T.  Quinctius  Pennus  iterum.     Yeientes  in  agrum 

^    LfOtlU'OS,   vol.   i\    p.   V.   SCq. 


V: 


E\iia.* 


Romanum  excursiones  fecerunt.  Fama  fuit,  quosdam  ex 
Fidenatium  juveTitute  participes  ejus  populationis  fuisse: 
cognitioque  ejus  rei  L.  Sergio,  et  Q.  Servilio,  et  Mam.  il^^milio 
permissa.  Quidani  Ostiam  relegati,  quod,  cur  per  eos  dies  a 
Fidenis  abfuissent,  paruni  constabat.  Colonorum  additus 
numerus,  agerque  iis  hello  interemptorum  assignatus.  Sicci- 
tate  eo  anno  plurimum  laboratum  est :  nee  coelestes  modo 
defuerunt  aqua3,  sed  terra  quoque  ingenito  humore  egens,  vix 
ad  perennes  suffecit  anmes.  Defectus  alibi  aquarum  circa  tor- 
ridos  fontes  rivoscpie  stragem  siti  pecoruin  morientium  dedit ; 
scabie  alia  absumpta :  vidgatique  contactu  in  homines  morbi, 
et  primo  in  agrestes  in  gruerant,  servitiaque  :  urbs  delude 
impletur."  ^  And  so  through  the  whole  chapter,  which  contains 
the  events  of  four  years.  It  is  impossible  that  a  passage  like 
this,  relating  to  events  more  than  thirty  years  previous  to  the 
capture  of  liome  by  the  Gauls,  could  have  been  restored  from 
memory;  and  it  would  be  still  more  absurd  to  suppose  it  a 
deliberate  forgery.  Such  is  not  the  style  in  which  literary 
forgeries  are  perpetrated,  and  especially  in  a  comparatively 
illiterate  a<]^e.  If  not  taken  from  the  Commentarii  Pontificum 
its  matei'ials  must  at  all  events  have  been  found  in  the 
Annales  Maximi. 

It  has  been  a  favourite  method  wdtli  the  sceptical  critics 
since  the  time  of  Beaufort  ^  to  compare  the  Iloman  history 
with  the  Greek.  Although  the  Greeks,  it  is  said,  were  a 
much  more  cultivated  people  than  the  liomans,  and  began 
to  write  history  much  earlier  than  they,  yet  they  had  no 
historian  before  Herodotus,  wdio  flourished  in  the  fifth  century 
before  Christ.  In  like  manner  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  observes  :  ^ 
"  Put  even  in  Greece,  the  use  of  writing  for  the  purposes  of 
public  historical  registration  was  very  limited  at  the  time  to 
which  Livy  refors.  Thucydides  describes  the  Athenians,  in 
the  year  415  B.C.,  as  knowing  their  history  during  the  I^isi- 
stratic  period,  which  was  aljout  a  century  l)ack,  only  by 
hearsay  accounts,    and  not  from    written  documents  ;    and 

1  Liv.  iv.  30. 

'  See  his  *'  Disstrtation  sur  rincertitiulc  <'C.s  cinij  premiers  Siecles  tie 
VHistoirc  vointtiuc,"  y.  -2,  icj^.  ^  \{A.  i.  p.  154. 


1 


SOURCES    OF    ROMAN    IIISTOKY. 


the  burning  of  Eome  was  in  390  B.C.,  only  twenty-five  years 
afterwards.  jMoreover,  the  Eomans,  though  an  enterprising 
and  w^arlike  peo})le,  were  at  this  time  far  from  equal  to  the 
Atlienians  in  refinement  and  mental  cultivation  ;  and  writing, 
which  was  still  not  in  common  use  at  Athens,  was,  we  may 
be  sure,  still  more  rarely  employed  at  Eome."  Hence  it 
seems  necessarily  to  follow  that  it  must  have  been  long  after 
this  period  that  history  began  to  be  written  at  Eome. 

This  argument  contains  its  own  refutation  ;  because  if  the 
Athenians  in  B.C.  415  knew  their  history  for  the  preceding 
century  only  by  hearsay,  they  could  not  have  been  more 
advanced  than  the  Eomans  as  regards,  at  least,  historical 
knowledge  ;  nay,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  what  we  have  said 
on  this  subject,  they  must  have  been  a  great  deal  behind 
them.  In  fact,  the  rise  of  literature  at  Athens  was  late  and 
sudden.  And  though  in  polite  literature  they  w^ere  im- 
measurably superior  to  the  Eomans,  yet  that  circumstance 
by  no  means  proves  that  they  were  more  careful  in  recording 
political  events.  The  practical  turn  of  mind  of  the  Eomans 
seems  here  to  have  given  them  an  advantage  over  the  more 
refined  and  brilliant  intellect  of  the  Athenians.  The  Eomans 
appear  to  have  formed  a  different  conception  of  history  from 
the  Greeks.  They  regarded  it  not  as  a  matter  of  literary 
leisure  and  amusement,  to  be  left  to  any  casual  writer  who 
might  be  induced  by  a  love  of  fame,  or  any  other  motive,  to 
pursue  it :  they  made  it  an  affair  of  state,  and  charged  the 
Pontifices  not  only  with  the  care  of  noting  down  in  the 
Annales  jNIaximi  the  principal  events  as  they  happened,  but 
also  of  drawing  up  in  the  Commentarii  a  connected  history 
of  the  city.  The  result  is  what  we  see.  For  the  early 
annals  of  Eome,  however  imperfect  through  the  lapse  of  ages 
and  the  injuries  occasioned  by  fire  and  other  accidents,  are 
still  much  more  full  and  satisfactory  than  those  of  Athens 
or  of  any  other  Greek  city.  This  respect  for  the  past,  this 
desire  to  be  guided  by  example  and  precedent,  is  a  striking 
characteristic  of  the  early  Eomans,  and  appears  to  have  l^een 
common  to  tliem  ^^•ith  other  Italian  peoples.  Thus  we  find 
Ovius  Pactius,  an  aged  Sanniite  priest,  reading,  in  B.C.  293, 


THE   COMMENTARII    POXTIFICUM. 


li 


from  an  anclmt  linen  hool;  a  formulary  of  sacrifice."^  Aricia, 
Praineste,  and  Tusculum  had  their  Fasti,  which  were  cited 
by  the  antiipiary  Cincius,-  and  Dionysius  mentions  that  the 
Sabines  possessed  annals  from  an  early  period.^^ 

It  seems  probable  that  the  Commentarii  Pontificum  were 
also  known  by  the  name  of  Annales,  which  was  a  common 
appellation  for  an  historical  work  among  the  Eomans ;  and 
the  Commentarii  were  probably  digested  according  to  years, 
at  all  events  after  the  establishment  of  the  Eepublic.  Hence 
when  Quintilian  says,  "  Quid  erat  futurum  si  nemo  plus 
effecisset  eo,  quern  sequebatur  ?  Nihil  in  poetis  supra  Livium 
Andronicum,  nihil  in  historiis  supra  Pontificum  Annales,"  * 
he  seems  to  mean  the  Commentarii ;  and  the  Annales  Maximi 
were  perhaps  always  cited  under  that  precise  title.  So  again, 
when  Cicero,  speaking  of  Pythagoras  having  been  the  teacher 
of  Numa,  says :  "  Ssepe  enim  hoc  de  majoribus  natu  audi- 
vinnis  et  ita  intelligimus  vulgo  existimari :  neque  vero  satis 
id  annalium  publicorum  auctoritate  declaratum  videnms,"  ^ 
he  is  probably  referring  to  the  Commentarii  Pontificum, 
because  the  words  jyuhlicorum  and  auetoritate  seem  to  refer 
to  a  work  of  more  weight  than  the  early  literary  annals ;  and 
because  he  could  hardly  have  meant  the  Annales  Maximi, 
which,  being  merely  a  register  of  events  as  they  occurred, 
would  not  have  entered  into  the  education  of  Numa.  The 
following  passage  from  Diomedes,  the  grammarian,*'  also  ap- 
pears to  show  that  the  Commentarii  Pontificum  were  some- 
times called  Annales  Puhlici :—''  Awn^lii^  Publici,  quos  Pon- 
tifices scribcieque  conficiunt ; "  where,  if  he  had  been  alluding 
to  the  Annales  ]\Iaximi,  he  would  have  named  only  the 
Pontifex  Maximus. 

We  will  now  discuss  some  objections  wdiicli  have   been 
uro-ed  a<'ainst   the   existence  of  any  such  historical  sources 


1  Liv.  X.  38. 

2  i\lacrob.  Sat.  i.  12.  A  portion  of  tlie  Fasti  Piwnestini  have  been  dis- 
covered, whioli  mention  the  ancient  Latin  traditions  respecting  Mezentius  and 
Acca  Larentia.     (Orelli,  Inser.  Lat.  iii.  388,  404.) 

3  Tal).  ii.  49.  *  Inst.  Orat.  x.  2,  7. 
••  De  Kcp.  ii.  15.  "  r.  480,  ed.  Putsch. 


lii 


SOURCES   OF  ROMAN  HISTORY. 


as  those  we  liave  described.  Scliwegler  remarks,^  after 
Beaufort :  "  If  we  inquire  for  the  sources  of  the  older  Pioman 
history,  we  meet  at  the  outset  the  surprising  circumstance 
that  no  connected  historical  work  was  composed  during  the 
first  five  centuries  of  the  city,  which  might  have  served  as  a 
foundation  for  later  historians.  The  writing  of  history  began 
at  a  very  late  period  among  the  Eomans.  Livy  complains 
more  than  once  of  the  want  of  literature  during  the  first  five 
centuries ;  and,  on  the  occasion  of  the  controverted  dictator- 
ship of  the  year  432,  he  expresses  his  regret  that  the  history 
of  that  period  had  not  been  handed  'down  by  any  contem- 
porary writer.  Dionysius  also,  in  enumerating  his  sources, 
remarks  that  Eome  had  not  a  single  ancient  historian.  In 
fact,  Fabius  Pictor  is  the  most  ancient  one  we  know  of,  and 
is  expressly  characterised  by  Livy  as  such." 

We  have  explained,  and  need  not  here  repeat,  the  difference 
between  mere  literary  history  and  those  annalistic  records 
the  keeping  of  which  was  among  the  Eomans  a  function  of 
state  ;  and  it  follows  from  this  explanation  that  it  is  false  to 
imagine  that  the  first  literary  historians  had  no  foundation 
for  their  narrative.  Nor  is  it  true  that  Livy  complains  of 
an  absolute  want  of  literature  {Litter aturlosigkcit),  but  only  of 
its  comparative  rarity,  as  appears  from  the  two  passages 
adduced  by  Scliwegler  in  proof  of  his  assertion  :  "  Quod 
parva3  et  rarse  per  eadem  tempora  litera3  fuere,"  vi.  1  ;  and, 
"  Quia  raree  per  ea  tempora  litera}  erant,"  vii.  3.  And  if  the 
literature  was  scanty,  so  the  history  is  proportionably  meagre 
and  unsatisfactory  :  which  is  all  that  Livy  means  to  say. 
The  one  bears  a  direct  ratio  to  the  other;  for  wdiile  Livy 
records  the  events  of  the  first  four  centuries  and  more  in  ten 
books,  the  remaining  period  down  to  the  death  of  Drusus, 
embracing  less  than  three  centuries,  filled  one  hundred  and 
thirty-two  books. 

AVith  regard  to  the  dictatorship  of  the  year  u.C.  432,  we 
will  give  the  whole  passage  from  Livy,  and  not  merely  the 
concluding  sentence,  as  quoted  by  Scliwegler  in  a  note : — • 

^  Bucli  i.  §  2.     Compare  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  vol.  i.  cli.  iii.  §  10,  wiiere  iiiucli 
tlie  same  ar^^Uxiieiits  are  employed. 


SOME   OBJECTIONS   EXAMINED. 


1  •  *  • 

llll 


"  Nec  discropat  quin  dictator  eo  anno  A.  Cornelius  fuerit:  id 
ambi<dtur,  belline  f^erendi  causa  creatus  sit ;  an  ut  esset  qui 
ludis  Eomanis,  quia  L.  Plautius  praitor  gravi  morbo  forte 
implicitus  erat,  signuni  mittendis  quadrigis  daret,  functuscpie 
00  baud  sane  memorandi  imperii  ministerio,  se  dictatura  abdi- 
caret :  nee  facile  est  aut  rem  rei,  aut  auctorem  auctori  prav 
ferre.  Vitiatam  memoriam  funebribus  laudibus  reor,  falsisque 
imaginuin  titulis,  dum  familia  ad  se  qua^que  famam  rerum 
gestarum  honorumque  fallente  mendacio  trahunt.  Inde  certe 
et  singulorum  gesta  et  publica  monumenta  rerum  confusa. 
Nee  quisquam  a^qualis  temporibus  illis  scriptor  extat,  quo 
satis  ccrto  auctore  stetur."  ^ 

Let  us  observe,  first  of  all,  that  writers  were  agreed  that 
A.  Cornelius  was  dictator  in  that  year.     The  fact  could  not 
be  denied,  because  no  doubt  his  name  appeared  in  the  Annals, 
or  in  the  Liber  Magistratuum  ;  wdiich,  however,  did  not  assign 
the  reason  of  his  appointment.     That  his  name  so  appeared 
is  evident  from  Livy  proceeding  to  say  that,  through  family 
ambition,  "  et  singulorum  gesta  et  pnhlica  momimcnta  rerum 
confusa;'  for   from  these  w^ords    it    is    evident   that   public 
records  of  the  period    existed.     But  though   Cornelius   was 
dictator,  it  was  for  so  trifling  a  cause  as  rendered  it  an  "  im- 
periuni  baud  sane  memorandum,"  and  therefore  the  Annals, 
or  Commentarii,  said  no  more  about   him.      But   after   liis 
death,  it  seems  to  have  l)een  asserted  by  his  family  that  he 
had  been  appointed  dictator  on  account  of  the  Sanniite  war ; 
and  this  was  proclaimed  in  his  funeral  oration,  and  inserted 
among  the  titles  on  his  bust.  Nor  after  all  was  the  pretension 
so  egregious,  as  Cornelius  appears  to  have  defeated  the  Sam- 
nites  in  his  dictatorship  a  year  or  two  before;  though  some 
writers  claimed  even  this  victory  for  the  consuls."     Purtlicr, 
Schwegler's  assertion  of  Livy's  regret  that  the  history  of  that 
period  had  not  been  handed  down  hy  any  conteviporary  u'ritrr,^ 
is  totally  unfounded,  and  springs  from  a  misconstruction  of 
Livy's  words.    For  when  that  historian  says,  "  Xec  quisquam 

1  Uh.  viii.  40.  ^  Hn^l-  38,  39. 

3  "  Dass  die  Gesehiclite  jencs  Zeitraums  v<m  keiiiom  j^lciclizeil  igcii  Gcscliicht- 
sclireiber  iibcrlicfert  scy." — §  2. 


liv 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


?e(|ualis  temporibiis  illis  scriptor  extat,  quo  satis  ccrto  aiictorc 
steiurj'  his  words  necessarily  imply  that  there  were  contem- 
porary writers,  but  none  whom  he  could  sufficiently  trust  in 
this  matter.  Had  he  meant  that  there  was  absolutely  no 
writer,  to  say  that  he  could  not  sufficiently  trust  a  writer  who 
did  not  exist  would  have  been  utterly  absurd. 

Before  proceeding  any  further,  we  will  say  a  word  or  two 
about  these  funeral  orations.  The  origin  of  them  was  at 
least  almost  coeval  with  the  Republic,  for  in  B.C.  480  the 
Consul  Fabius  Yibulanus  made  an  oration  over  the  bodies  of 
his  colleague  Manlius  and  of  his  own  brother  Q.  Fabius,  who 
had  fallen  in  the  Etruscan  war.^  These  orations,  with  the 
titles  upon  busts,  sarcophagi,  &c.  must  have  constituted  a  sort 
of  records  dating  from  a  very  early  period ;  but  unfortunately, 
from  the  cause  already  adverted  to,  they  could  not  be  im- 
plicitly relied  on.  At  the  same  time,  let  us  recognise  from 
their  existence  the  desire  which  prevailed  among  the  liomans 
of  perpetuating  the  memory  of  the  achievements  of  their 
ancestors,  as  a  sure  pledge  that  they  would  not  have  suffered 
the  history  of  their  country  to  fall  into  oblivion  for  w^ant  of 
a  chronicler  ;  for  with  it  were  intimately  connected  the  history 
and  the  glory  of  the  great  patrician  families.  Xor  after  all, 
perhaps,  was  the  vanity  which  prompted  a  little  exaggeration 
in  these  funeral  eulogiums  and  inscriptions  a  source  of  any 
very  great  depravation  of  the  history  ;  for  the  Eoman  his- 
torians were  fully  aware  of  it,  and  on  their  guard  against  it. 
This  is  shown  by  the  passage  just  quoted  from  Livy,  as  well 
as  by  the  following  one  from  Cicero  : — "  Nee  vero  habeo  anti- 
(piiorem  (Catone)  cujus  quidem  scripta  proferenda  putem,  nisi 
queni  Appi  Cseci  oratio  de  l^yrrho  et  nonnuUio  mortuorum 
laudationes  delectant.  Et  hercules  lire  quidem  extant :  ipsre 
enim  familise  sua  quasi  ornamenta  ac  monumenta  servabant 
et  ad  usum,  si  quis  ejusdem  generis  occidiseet,  et  ad  niemoriam 
laudum  domesticarum  et  ad  illustrandam  nobilitatem  suam. 
Quamquam  his  laudationibus  historia  rerum  nostrarum  est 
facta  mendosior  :  multa  enim  scripta  sunt  eis,  quae  facta  non 
sunt,   falsi   trinmphi,  plurcs   consulatus,  genera  etiam  falsa 

^  Livy,  ii.  47  ;  cf.  ii..61,  ^c 


FUNKUAL    ORATIONS    AND    FAMILY    MEMOIRS. 


Iv 


et  ad  plebem  transitiones."  ^  But  in  most  such  cases  the 
truth  would  have  been  elicited  by  comparing  together  the 
memorials  of  different  families,  and  the  whole  with  the  pu])lic 
registers.  Take,  for  instance,  the  account  just  given  of  the 
dictator  A.  Cornelius.  Whether  it  was  he  or  the  consuls 
who  defeated  the  Samnites  might  be  matter  of  dispute  be- 
tween the  gens  Cornelia  and  the  gentes  Fabia  and  Fulvia ; 
but  the  dispute  itself  is  a  proof  that  the  Samnites  were 
beaten,  which  after  all  is  the  main  point ;  by  whom  was  not 
of  much  importance,  except  to  the  fomilies  mentioned.  And 
admitting  that  several  minor  errors  of  this  description  may 
liave  crept  into  the  early  Eoman  history,  still  this  does  not 
mvalidate  the  great  bulk  of  it,  and  reduce  it  to  a  mere 
fnntasy. 

The  memoirs  of  some  of  the  great  houses  must  have  been 
of  much  the  same  value  as  historical  sources  as  these 
funeral  orations,  being  liable  to  the  same  exaggerations.  These 
memoirs  occasionally  claimed  a  very  high  antiquity.  The 
gens  Octavia,  for  example,  must  have  possessed  old  family 
memoirs  reaching  up  to  the  time  of  the  kings,  since  w^e  are 
told  that  it  traced  its  origin  to  Velitrie,  that  it  was  elected 
into  the  Eoman  gentes  by  Tarquinius  Priscus,  into  the  Senate 
by  Servius  Tullius,  and  became  ultimately  plebeian.^  But  in 
general  we  may  suppose  that  family  memoirs  hardly  existed 
before  the  establishment  of  the  Eepublic,  and  would  not 
therefore  have  thrown  much  light  upon  the  regal  period.  The 
Censorian  families,  in  particular,  appear  to  have  kept  such 
records,  and  Dionysius  tells  us^  that  they  were  carefully 
handed  down  from  fiither  to  son.  He  even  mentions  having 
seen  some  which  must  have  been  previous  to  the  Gallic  con- 
flagration, as  they  recorded  the  census  taken  in  the  consul- 
ship of  L.  Valerius  Potitus  and  j\I.  Manlius  Ca2)itolinus,  which 
fell  in  the  llStli  year  after  the  expulsion  of  Tarquin,  and 
consequently  two  years  before  the  burning  of  the  city. 

There  is  no  force  in  Schwegler's  concluding  remark,  that 
both  Livy  and  Dionysius  expressly  call  Fabius  Pictor  the 


»  Brut.  in. 


3  Lih.  i.  74. 


2  Snot.  Oct.  f,  1,  scq. 


Ivi 


SOUKCES   OF   KOMAN   HISTOr.Y 


PRIVATE   CHRONICLES. 


Ivii 


oldest  historian.!  No  doubt  he  was  the  first  writer  of  literary 
history  for  the  public  ;  but  we  have  already  shown  from  both 
the  writers  named,  that  histories  not  intended  for  publication 
had  been   composed  at  Eome   centuries   before  the  time  of 

Fabius. 

Althouo-h  Sir  G.    C.   Lewis  is   of  opinion  that  the    early 
Eoman  history  could  have  had  little  or  no  foundation  but 
oral  tradition,  yet  Schwegler  is  so  convinced  of  the  impossi- 
bility of  its  having  been  derived  from  such  a  source,  that,  as 
he  rejects  the  preservation  of  any  public  annals,  he  is  induced 
to  assume  the  existence  of  certain  private  chroniclers.     "  Be- 
sides the  annals  of  the  priests,"  he  observes,^  "  and  unconnected 
with  them,  there  must  have  been  private  chronicles.     The 
Eoman  annalists  from  the  time  of  Fabius  Pictor   evidently 
drew  from  older  chronicles,  which  must  have  reached  back 
beyond  the  Gallic  catastrophe.     For  it  cannot  be  supposed 
that  the  previous  history,  which  has  quite  an  annalistic  form, 
the  accounts  of  the  Yolscian,  ^quian,  and  Veientine  wars, 
with  their  frequently  dry  and  wearisome  details,  or  the  history 
of  the  numerous  prodigies,  epidemics,   and  striking  natural 
phenomena  handed  down  from  that  epoch,  were  first  recorded 
after   the  Gallic    capture  from   memory  and   oral   tradition. 
Most  of  these  accounts  must   rest  on  contemporaneous  and 
written  record,  or  at  all  events  nearly  contemporaneous.    Such 
annalistic  records  appear  to  have  been  begun  not  long  after 
the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy,  or  at  all  events  in  the  third 
century  of  the  city,  and  appear  to  have  been  originally  carried 
np  to  the  foundation  of  the  Eepublic.     That  they  did  not, 
at  least  originally,  reach  up  to  the  regal  period,  is  shown,  as 
we  have  before  remarked,  by  the  unchronological  character 
of  the  history  of  the  kings,  which  excludes  all  possibility  of 
annalistic  record.     Even  the  first  score  or  two  years  of  the 
Eepublic  cannot  have  been  recorded  contemporaneously,  but 
from  memory,  as  may  be  perceived  partly  from  the  contra- 
dictions in  the  chronology — as,  for  instance,  the  battle  of  Lake 
Eegillus  is  placed  by  some  in  the  year  255,  by  others  in  258 
— partly  from  the  confusion  of  the  Fasti  during  the  first  years 

Livy,  i.  -14  ;  ii.  40  :  Dioiivs.  vii.  71.  -  Iku'ii  i.  §  5, 


m-i 


of  the  l?epubli(;,  and  partly  from  the  legendary  and  uuhis- 
torical  character  of  the  traditions  of  that  period.  There 
must,  moreover,  have  been  several  independent  chronicles  of 
this  kind,  as  we  sometimes  find  in  the  later  historians  one 
and  the  same  fact  related  twice,  or  oftener,  under  different 
years,  which  can  only  have  arisen  from  their  having  put 
together  without  any  critical  examination  the  varying  accounts 
of  different  chronicles.  Thus,  for  example,  Livy  relates  four 
campaigns  against  the  Volscians  in  the  years  251 — 259,  which 
doubtless  are  only  variations  of  one  and  the  same  event.  It 
was  these  chronicles  which  served  as  historical  sources  to 
Fabius  Pictor,  Cincius  Alimentus,  and  the  annalists  of  the 
sixth  century,  and  give  us  a  security  that  the  traditional 
history,  from  about  the  time  of  the  first  secession,  is  in  its 
general  outline  authentic.  Even  in  the  narrative  of  Livy  we 
may,  as  Niebuhr  justly  remarks,^  detect  here  and  there  the 
dry  and  halting  style  of  the  old  chronicles,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  following  passage  : — "  His  consulibus  Fidense  obsessae, 
Crustumeria  capta,  Praeneste  ab  Latinis  ad  Eomanos  descivit ; "  - 
a  brevity  which  stiikingly  differs  from  the  long  descriptions 
in  other  places  of  indecisive  battles.  Livy,  however,  had  not 
seen  these  chronicles,  as  clearly  appears  from  a  passage  in  his 
work.'"^  T^or  had  Dionysius;  which,  however,  would  not 
exclude  the  possibility  that  such  chronicles  were  extant  in  the 
time  of  Varro  and  Verrius  Flaccus,  and  were  used  by  those 
learned  antiquaries.  Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  point  out 
the  similarity  of  such  chronicles  to  those  of  the  Carlo vingian 
times :  as,  for  instance,  to  a  passage  like  the  following : — 
"  Carolus  bellum  habuit  contra  Saxones.  Carolus  mortnus 
est.     Eclipsis  solis.     Fames  valid  a." 

The  general  view  contained  in  this  passage,  namely,  that 
there  must  liave  been  records  from  which  Fabius  Pictor, 
Cincius,  and  the  other  early  annalists  drew  their  narratives, 
appears  to  us  unanswerable.  We  have  already  endeavoured 
to  show  that  such  minute,  and,  we  might  say,  commonplace 
details  as  sometimes  appear  in  the  early  history  could  not 
possibly  have  been  handed  down  by  oral  tradition,  and  are 


Rom.  Gesch.  ii,  5. 


«  Lib.  ii.  19. 

r 


^  Lib.  viii.  40, 


Iviii 


SOURCES    OF    ROMAN    HISTORY 


still  less  likely  to  have  been  the  produce  of  literary  forgery. 
But  with  regard  to  Schwegler's  opinion  that  these  materials 
for  history  were  not  preserved  in  any  official  records,  hut 
in  certain  political  chronicles  kept  by  private  individuals  or 
families,  we  may  observe :  First,  that  this  is  mere  conjecture, 
unsupported  by  a  single  scrap  of  authority ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  have  already  shown,  from  the  testimony  of 
various  authors,  that  the  Annals  and  Commentaries  of  the 
priests  contained  the  facts  of  the  early  history,  and  were,  in 
all  probability,  in  great  measure  preserved.  Secondly,  such 
an  authentic  source  beinc^  in  existence,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
what  motive  could  have  induced  a  private  individual  to  keep 
a  similar  chronicle,  even  if  he  had  the  requisite  opportunity 
to  do  so ;  and  at  all  events  such  a  chronicle  could  have  been 
little  more  than  a  transcript  of  the  official  one.  Thirdly, 
if  such  private  chronicles  existed,  how  could  Fabius  and 
Cincius  with  propriety  be  called  the  first  annalists  ?  Fourthly, 
the  chronicles,  so  frequently  recording  prodigies,  epidemics, 
and  striking  natural  phenomena,  savour  much  more  of 
records  kept  by  priests  than  of  the  memoirs  of  a  warrior  or 
statesman.  We  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  it  is  much  more 
probable  to  assume  the  preservation  of  the  Annates  Maximi, 
partly  also  of  the  Commentarii  Pontificum,  than  the  existence 
of  these  private  chronicles  of  the  State. 

At  the  same  time  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  many  of  the 
great  patrician  houses  kept  family  memoirs;  and  when  we 
consider  what  a  leading  part  some  of  these  families — such, 
for  instance,  as  the  Fabii — played  in  the  affairs  of  Eome, 
it  is  evident  that  a  history,  or  chronicle,  of  the  gens  Fabia 
would,  for  a  certain  period,  and  to  a  considerable  extent,  be 
a  history  of  Rome.  It  seems  a  probable  conjecture  of  Bern- 
hardy's^  that  the  possession  of  such  a  chronicle  and  of 
numerous  other  historical  documents  by  the  Fabii  may  have 
been  one  of  the  motives  which  induced  Fabius  Pictor  to 
write  his  w^ork. 

The   answer  to  Schwegler's  remarks  about  the  unchrono- 
logical  character  of  the  history  of  the  kings,  and  the  inference 

*  Orundriss  der  Rom.  Lit.  S.  175,  Anm.  128  ;  S.  203,  Aiini.  155. 


SIR    (;.    C.    LEWLSS    VIEW. 


lix 


thence  drawn  that  contemporary  record  could  not  have 
reached  up  to  the  regal  period,  has  been  forestalled  by 
showing  that  the  better  chronology  of  the  republican  period 
is  merely  a  result  of  the  annual  consulship. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  remarks :  ^  "If  these  writers  (Fabius  and 
Cincius)  began  to  collect  materials  for  their  history  of  the 
First  Punic  War  in  the  years  220 — 200  B.C.,  they  might  have 
obtained  oral  accounts  of  it  from  aged  persons  whose  memory 
extended  as  far  back  as  its  commencement.  .  .  .  Fabius 
and  Cincius  might  therefore  have  written  as  contemporaries 
themselves,  or  from  information  furnished  directly  by  con- 
temporaries, for  the  period  including  the  first  two  Punic 
Wars,  204 — 201  B.C.,  and  for  any  later  time  comprehended 
within  their  histories." 

According  to  this  an  absolutely  authentic  history,  or  one 
founded  on  contemporary  testimony,  could  not  have  reached 
beyond  the  First  Punic  War.  And  even  at  this  late  period, 
it  is  not  supposed  that  any  public  records  were  made.  The 
only  materials  used  by  Fabius  and  Cincius  are  conjectured 
to  have  been  what  they  knew  of  their  own  knowledge,  or  had 
heard  fVom  old  men  ;  both  which  sources  might  not  have 
been  tirst-rate.  But  a  page  or  two  further  on,  this  view  is 
considerably  modified,  as  follows  : — 

"  When  we  consider  the  energy,  intelligence,  and  systematic 
fixed  principles  of  policy  with  which  the  liomans  had  not 
only  conducted  the  two  Punic  Wars,  but  which  they  had 
exhibited  in  their  resistance  to  Pyrrhus,  we  must  feel  satisfied 
that  they  could  not  have  been  indifferent  about  their  own 
early  history.  A  nation  which  held  so  strictly  to  legal  and 
constitutional  precedent  in  the  administration  of  public  affairs 
and  to  an  established  course  of  practice,  must  have  possessed 
an  accredited,  if  not  an  authentic  and  true  tradition  respecting 
its  past  transactions ;  respecting  its  former  successes,  dangers, 
and  reverses ;  respecting  its  great  men  and  their  great  deeds ; 
respecting  the  origins  of  the  political  forms,  the  military 
regulations,  and  the  religious  institutes  round  which  their 
patriotic  feelings  clustered,  and  which,  in  their  belief,  were 

'    Vol.  i.  p.  80. 

t  2 


Ix 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN   HISTORY. 


SIR   G.   C.   lewis's  view. 


Ixi 


the  sources  of  their  power  and  greatness.  The  leading 
families  of  the  State,  in  whom  the  high  and  important  offices, 
civil  and  religious,  were  almost  hereditar}^,  who  furnished 
a  succession  of  consuls,  pra3tors,  censors,  quaestors,  and 
pontiffs  to  the  Eoman  people,  and  who  successively  con- 
tributed members  to  the  dignified  Eoman  Senate,  were  doubt- 
less the  depositaries  of  a  traditionary  belief  respecting  the 
past  ages  of  the  city.^  How  far  this  belief  was  authentic, 
and  adequately  supplied  the  place  of  a  histoiy  written  con- 
temporaneously with  the  events,  or  taken  down  from  the 
mouths  of  contemporaries,  we  shall  inquire  presently.  But 
that  such  a  fixed  belief  in  the  history  of  Eome,  from  its 
foundation  up  to  the  time  of  Pyrrhus,  was  then  in  existence 
among  the  more  intelligent  and  instructed  portion  of  the 
Eoman  people,  and  particularly  among  those  who  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  conduct  of  its  public  affairs,  cannot 
be  doubted  by  any  one  who  considers  the  political  and  social 
state  of  Rome  during  the  Punic  Wars."  ^ 

We  have  here  an  admission  very  similar  to  that  of 
Schwegler,  to  which  we  have  just  adverted.  The  Eomans 
as  early  as  the  time  of  Pyrrhus,  that  is,  nearly  three  centuries 
B.C.,  were  not  "indifferent  about  their  own  early  history." 
Yet  even  then,  and  although  it  is  not  disputed  by  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis  that  they  possessed  the  art  of  writing,  they  are  not 
supposed  to  have  noted  it  down.  Nay,  though  they  were 
such  lovers  of  constitutional  precedent  and  an  established 
course  of  practice,  they  are  not  supposed  to  have  recorded 
even  the  events .  of  their  own  times  for  the  benefit  of  their 
posterity ;  for  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  as  we  have  seen,  thinks  that 
Fabius  and  Cincius,  the  first  annalists  whom  he  recognises, 
who  flourished  a  century  later,  drew  their  narratives  entirely 
from  tradition  and  the  memory  of  old  men. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  character  of  the  Eomans  is  in  glaring 

1  Hero  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  adds  in  a  note,  "  This  system  of  practically  con- 
fining the  chief  oflEices  of  the  republic  to  a  small  number  of  Roman  families 
must  have  tended,  by  preserving  political  traditions,  and  concentratino- 
political  interest,  to  perpetuate  the  history  of  the  past." 

2  Vol.  i.  p.  83,  seq. 


w 


i 


.  ij 


contradiction  with  his  estimate  of  their  history.  He  admits 
that  they  took  the  greatest  interest  in  it,  that  they  were 
aware  of  its  importance  for  the  establishment  of  consti- 
tutional precedent,  and  yet  they  took  not  the  slightest 
care   to   preserve  it  from  oblivion  for  the  benefit  of  their 

posterity  1 

But  is  it  prol)al3le,  after  the  many  vicissitudes  which 
Eome  had  undergone,  that  this  interest  was  first  awakened 
so  late  as  the  time  of  Pyrrhus  ?  Or  that  in  spite  of  "  the 
intelligence  and  systematic  fixed  principles  of  policy  "  of  the 
Eomans  of  that  time,  these  principles  were  founded  on  mere 
romance?  If  it  was  from  such  materials  that  their  con- 
stitutional precedents  were  drawn,  they  had  better  have  been 
without  them ;  and  the  intelligence  and  energy  attributed 
to  them  seems  to  be  nothing  but  a  bitter  irony. 

Let  us  observe  a  few  more  contradictions.  In  vol.  i.  p.  119, 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  affirms  that  the  historical  knowledge  of  the 
best  informed  statesmen  and  pontiffs  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Second  Punic  War  did  not  reach  much  beyond  a  century. 
And  in  the  next  page  he  says:  "Those  who  lived  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Second  Punic  War  were  doul)tless  better 
acquainted  with  the  constitution  of  that  time  and  of  the 
century  immediately  preceding  than  the  writers  of  the 
Augustan  age  could  be.  Their  knowledge  of  the  earlier 
times  must,  however,  have  been  imperfect,  faint,  and  con- 
fused, even  where  it  was  founded  on  authentic  though  meagre 
traditions,  and  positively  erroneous  if  an  attempt  was  made 
to  fill  up  the  outline.  The  Eoman  constitution  had  not, 
indeed,  undergone  any  fundamental  change  in  the  interval 
of  230  years  between  the  Decemvirate  and  the  Second  Punic 
War  (449—218  B.C.);  but  during  this  period  the  Canuleian 
law  of  445  B.C.,  the  Licinian  laws  of  367  B.C.,  the  laws  of 
the  Dictator  Publilius  Philo,  of  359  B.C.,  the  Ogulnian  law  of 
300  B.C.,  and  the  Hortensian  law  of  287  B.C.,  all  formed  im- 
portant steps  in  the  development  of  the  Eoman  constitution." 

That  is,  though  the  statesmen  at  the  time  of  the  Second 
Punic  War  had  only  a  confused  knowledge  of  the  history  of 
their  country  for  the  previous  century,  yet  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis, 


"V. 


S^'lt' 


Ixii 


SOUKOES   OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


LlliRI    PONTIFICALES,    AUGURALES,  P:TC. 


Ixiii 


even  at  this  day,  can  go  back  and  make  a  positive  assertion 
respecting  it  for  more  than  double  that  time,  and  can  trace 
the  successive  measures  by  wliich  the  Eoman  constitution 
was  developed  during  a  period  of  230  years  hcfore  the  Second 
Punic  War ! ! 

We  agree  with  Sir  G.  G.  Lewis's  main  position,  that  without 
record  there  can  be  no  authentic  histoiy.  But  what  were 
the  laws  here  cited  but  records  ?  And  to  suppose  that  these 
laws  stood  isolated  and  alone,  and  that  all  knowledge  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  they  were  passed  and  of  the 
objects  which  tliey  v\'ere  meant  to  attain  was  lost,  is  to 
suppose  an  absurdity. 

Having  attempted  to  show  by  arguments,  some  of  wliich, 
we  believe,  have  not  been  before  employed,  that  direct  and 
authentic  sources  for  the  early  history  of  Eonie  existed  in 
the   Annales  IVIaximi,  the  Gommcntarii  Pontificum,   and  in 
family  memoirs  and  records,  we  will  now  proceed  to  consider 
some  other   collateral  sources,  which  might  have  served  to 
check  and  confirm  the  history,  and  where  needful,  to  suggest 
restorations.     Among  these  we  may  firet  mention  the  Libri 
Pontificum,  Pontihcii,  or  Pontificales — which  appear  to  have 
been  distinct  from  the  Commentarii — and  the  Libri  Augurales. 
The  contents  of  the  latter  may  be  inferred  from  their  name. 
They  were  the  registers  of  the  college  of  augurs,  and  must 
have  contained  the  laws  and  traditions   of  that  priesthood. 
That  they  occasionally  contained  historical  facts  or  consti- 
tutional precedents  is    shown   by  the   following   passage  of 
Cicero :    "  Provocationem    etiam    a   regibus    fuisse    declarant 
pontificii  libri,  signiticant  etiam  nostri  augurales."^     It  is  a 
fair  inference  from  this  passage  that  both  the  Libri  Pontificii 
and   Libri  Augurales  reached  up  to  the  time  of  the  kings  ; 
at  all  events,  they  must  have  contained  the  traditions  of  the 
regal  period.     The  antiquity  of  the  Libri  Augurales  is  sup- 
ported by  their  obsolete   language.     Thus   Yarro  remarks,^ 
that  they  had  tera  for  terra,  and  tempestutera  for  fem^iestatem. 
From  another  passage  in  tlie  same  books,  we  learn  that  a 
dictator   was    anciently   called   Magister   Populi ;  ^    that   is, 

1  De  Rop.  ii.  31.       2  Li^g.  I.at.  v.  21  ;  vii.  51.         ^  c'ic.  De  Rep.  i.  40. 


ffv 


commander  of  the  whole  army,  or  people ;  while  his  sub- 
ordinate officer  was  only  jVIagister  Equitum,  commander  of 
the  knights,  or  cavalry.  These  books  seem  also  to  have  been 
sometimes  called  Commentarii  Augurum,  as  in  the  following 
passage  :  "  Itaque  in  nostris  Commentarii s  " — that  is,  of  our 
college  of  augurs — "  scriptum  habemus  :  ,Jove  tonante  ful- 
gurante,  comitia  populi  habere  nefas."  ^ 

We  may  suppose  that  the  Libri  Pontificales  contained  the 
pontifical  laws  and  customs,  just  as  the  Augurales  contained 
those  of  the  augurs.  Thus  we  find  passages  cited  from  them 
relating  to  observances  at  funerals,'"*  at  sacrifices,^  on  holidays,* 
&c.  There  were  other  sacerdotal  books  of  this  sort,  as  those 
of  the  Salii,  called  Agonenses,^  and  the  Commentarii  Quin- 
decemvirorum.<5  The  Commentaries  of  Nunia  probably  formed 
the  foundation  of  them.  According  to  Servius,  the  Libri 
Pontificales  were  also  called  [Indigitamenta :  "  Nomina  hsec 
numinum  in  Indigitamentis  inveniuntur,  id  est,  in  libris 
pontificalibus,  qui  et  nomina  deorum  et  rationes  ipsorum 
nominum  continent ;  "  *"  though  it  may  be  suspected  that  the 
Indigitamenta  were  more  particularly  books  containing  the 
proper  prayers  to,  and  modes  of  addressing,  the  different 
deities,  from  mdigitare  =  imprecari,  incantare.^  And  so 
IMacrobius  :  "  Eadem  opinio  sospi talis  et  medici  dei  in 
nostrisque  quoque  sacris  fovetur ;  nanique  Yirgines  Yestales 
ita  indigitant :  Apollo  Miedice,  Apollo  Piean,"^  The  language 
of  the  Salian  books  was  so  ancient  that  in  the  time  of  Quin- 
tilian  it  was  no  longer  understood  by  the  priests  themselves.^" 
Even  in  the  time  of  Yarro,  ^lius,  a  distinguished  student 
of  Latin  literature,  passed  over  many  obscure  passages  in 
interpreting  them ;  and  Yarro  considered  them  to  be  seven 

1  Cic.  De  Div.  ii.  18. 

2  VaiT.  Ling.  Lat.  v.  23  ;  Serv.  JVa\.  xii.  603. 

3  VaiT.  ib.  98.     Festus,  p.  189,  opinia. 

*  "  Sane  qune  ferijie  a  quo  genere  liominum,  vel  quibus  diebus  fieri  permissa 
sint,  si  qiiis  scire  desiderat,  libros  pontificales  legal. "—Serv.  Georg.  i.  272  ; 
cf.  Colum.  R.  R.  ii.  21,  5. 

^  Varr.  Ling.  Lat.  vi.  14.  ^  Censor,  De  Die  Nat.  c.  17. 

7  Ad.  Georg.  i.  21.  ^  Paul.  Diac.  p.  114. 

^'  Sat.  i.  17  ;  <^f.  Sf^lnv.'oler,  S.  3-J.  "'  Inst.  Or.  i.  6,  40. 


Ixiv 


SOUKCES    OF    KOMAX    HlJSTUKY. 


LIBKI   LINTEI,  TABUL.li   CExXSOKliK,    ETC. 


Ixv 


centuries  old.i     Horace  also  notes  their  obsolete  liUi«'uai»e  in 
the  following  lines  : — 

"Jam  saliare  Niinise  carmen  qui  laiidat,  et  illiid 
Quod  mecum  iguorat  solus  vult  scire  videri."^ 

The  Libri  Lintei,  or  Libri  Magistratuum,  contained,  as  the 
second  name  shows,  lists  of  the  magistrates,  while  the  first 
name  indicates  that  they  were  made  of  linen.  Becker,  how- 
ever, is  of  opinion,  from  a  passage  in  Livy  before  quoted 
(Lib.  iv.  7),  that  the  Libri  Lintei  and  Libri  Magistratuum 
were  distinct :  because  Livy  there  says  that  the  consuls  of 
that  year  were  not  mentioned  in  the  Libri  Magistratuum, 
though  they  were  mentioned  in  the  treaty  with  the  Ardeates  ; 
and  then  adds  that,  according  to  Licinius  Macer,  their  names 
appeared  both  in  the  Libri  Lintei  and  in  the  treaty.  But  it 
by  no  means  follows  from  this  passage  that  tlie  Libri  Magis- 
tratuum were  distinct  from  the  Lintei.  They  are  used  here 
as  convertible  terms,  and  this  is  shown  by  other  passages 
in  which  Livy  so  uses  them.  Thus  in  Lib.  iv.  20,  he  says : 
"  Quod  tarn  veteres  annales,  quodque  magistratiiitm  lih'i,  quos 
linteos  in  sede  repositos  Monetae  Macer  Licinius  citat  iden- 
tidem  auctores."  And  another  passage  shows  that  the  Libri 
Lintei  really  contained  the  names  of  the  magistrates :  "  Nihil 
enim  constat  disi  in  libros  linteos  utroque  anno  relatum  inter 
magistratus  praefecti  nomen"  (Lib.  iv.  13). 

The  first  of  the  passages  in  which  their  authority  is 
appealed  to  relates  to  a.u.c.  310,  or  B.C.  443,  more  than  half 
a  century  before  the  burning  of  the  city ;  and  indeed  it  is 
not  pretended  that  these  books  were  destroyed  on  that 
occasion,  since  they  were  preserved  in  the  Temple  of  Juno 
Moneta  on  the  Capitol,  which  never  fell  into  the  possession 
of  the  Gauls.  One  would  think  from  this  circumstance 
that  Livy  might  have  satisfied  himself  on  the  point  in 
question  by  consulting  the  books  themselves;  but  from 
some  cause  or  another — probably  his  idleness,  of  which  we 
shall  find  more  than  this  example — he  does  not  appear  to 
have  done  so. 


('<-*i',  ' 


I 


ftj'g.fe 


*  Ling.  Lat.  vii.  2,  scq. 


2  Epp.  ii.  1,  86. 


We  also  hear  of  Commentarii  Begum,  as  in  a  passage  of 
Cicero's  Oration  for  Eabirius  already  quoted.^  Only  those, 
however,  of  Numa  and  Servius  Tullius  are  specifically  nien- 
tioned.2  But  the  substance  of  the  Commentaries  of  Numa 
had  doubtless  been  absorbed  in  the  Libri  Pontificales ;  for 
had  they  been  extant  in  their  original  form,  the  forgery  of 
them,  to  which  we  have  already  alluded,  would  not  have  been 
attempted.  In  like  manner  the  Commentaries  of  Servius 
seem  to  have  formed  the  groundwork  of  the  subsequent 
Tabuhe  Censorias.  For,  as  Schwegler  has  pointed  out,*'^  Festus, 
in  the  following  passage,  refers  the  expression  ijrociim  to 
Servius  Tullius :  "  Procum  patricium  in  descriptione  classium, 
c[uam  fecit  Servius  Tullius,  significat  procerum  "  (p.  49)  wdiile 
Cicero  cites  the  Censoria}  Tabulae  for  the  same  expression  : 
"  Jam  ut  Censoria3  Tabula3  loquuntur,  fabrum  et  procum 
audeo  dicere,  non  fabrorum  et  procorum.""^  The  first  CensoriaB 
Tabuloe,  however,  must  have  been  those  of  Servius ;  and  it  is 
therefore,  not  altogether  impossible  that  they  may  have  been 
extant,  and  that  both  Cicero  and  Servius  are  alluding  to  them. 

The  Leges  Begise  were  another  collateral  source  of  early 
history.  They  are  frequently  mentioned  as  extant  by  the 
best  authorities.  Livy  expressly  says  ^  that  some  of  the  laws 
of  the  kings,  besides  the  decemviral  tables,  were  recovered 
after  the  fire ;  and  they  who  make  so  much  of  his  text  as  an 
authority  for  the  loss  of  historical  documents  in  that  cata- 
strophe, are  surely  bound  to  accept  the  exceptions  which  he 
specifies.  L.  Valerius,  in  his  speech  for  the  abrogation  of  the 
Lex  Oppia,  refers  to  the  existence  of  such  laws  :  "  Ha^c  quum 
ita  natura  dislincta  sint,  ex  utro  tandem  genere  ea  lex  esse 
videtur,  quam  abrogamus?  An  vetus  regia  lex,  simul  cum 
urbe  nata,"  *^  &c.     And  Cicero  bears  positive  testimony  to  the 

1  Above,  p.  xvii. 

2  See  Livy,  i.  31,  32,  60.  Cicero  appears  to  quote  some  expressions  from 
the  Commentaries  of  Servius  in  Uie  following  passage  :  "  In  quo  etiani 
verbis  ac  nominibus  fuit  di'igens  :  qui  quum  locupletes  assiduos  a}»iiellassct 
ab  eere  dando,  cos  qui  aut  non  plus  milla  quingentum  ?eris  aut  omnino  nihil 
in  suum  censum  prajter  caput  attulissent,  proletarios  nominavit." — De  Kcp. 
ii.  22.  •'  B.  i.  §  (>. 

•*  Dc  Orat.  4t),  lot).  ^  Lib.  vi.  1.  ^  Lib.  xxxiv.  6. 


^?; 


Ixvi 


SOUKCES   OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


LEGES    REGI^.. 


Ixvii 


existence  of  Nimia's  laws  :  "  Et  aiiimos,  propositis  legibus 
his,  qitas  in  inonununtis  liaheimis,  arclentes  consuetiidine  et 
cupiditate  bellaudi  religionum  cserimoniis  mitigavit  :  "  ^  and 
again  :  "  Ilia  autem  diuturna  pax  Numse  mater  huic  nrbi 
juris  et  religionis  fuit  :  qui  leguni  etiam  scriptor  fuisset, 
qitas  scitis  extarer  '^ 

Scliwegler,  after  Osann,  thinks  ^  that  the  word  fuisset  in 
the  last  passage  shows  that  Xunia's  laws  could  not  have  been 
written  ;  that  we  must  supply,  Numa  would  have  Avritten 
them,  if  at  that  time  wTiting  had  been  in  common  use.  The 
sentence  is  fragmentary,  breaking  off  in  the  middle,  so  that 
w^e  know  not  what  Cicero  was  going  to  add.  But  we  may  be 
quite  sure  that  it  was  not  an  objection  to  the  possibility  of 
Numa  having  written  his  law^s,  because  in  the  passage  first 
quoted  Cicero  speaks  of  their  positive  existence,  and  because, 
in  a  passage  before  cited,  we  see  that  Cicero  believed  literoe 
and  doctrince  to  have  been  already  inveterafce  in  the  time  of 
Eomulus."^  And  Li\y,  in  a  passage,  also  before  quoted,^  says 
that  Numa  delivered  his  laws  written  and  signed  to  Marcius. 
Festus  speaks  of  Numa's  laws  as  written  :  "  Itaque  in  Numie 
Pompili  regis  legibus  scriptum  esse,"  ^  &c.  Tacitus  alludes  to 
a  law  of  TuUus  Hostilius,  and  speaks  of  Ancus  Marcius  and 
Servius  TuUius  as  laAvgivers.''' 

Schwegler  infers  that  the  laws  of  Numa  had  been  absorbed 
in  the  Pontifical  books,  citing  in  support  of  this  opinion 
Festus  (p.  189,  Opima)  and  Plutarch  (Marc.  8).  But  the 
passage  in  Festus  leads  to  a  directly  opposite  conclusion.  It 
runs  as  follows  :  "  Testimonio  esse  libros  Pontificum,  in  quibus 
sit  :  Pro  primis  spoliis  bovem  (bove)  pro  secundis  solitaurili- 
bus,  pro  tertiis  agno  publice  fieri  debere  :  esse  etiam  compelli 
reges  (Pompilii  regis  ?)  legem  opimorum  spoliorum  talem  : 
Cujus  auspicio  classe  procincta  opima  spolia  capiuntur,  Jovi 
Feretrio  darier  oporteat,"  &c.  Now,  wdien  a  WTiter  cites  a 
passage  from  the  Libri  Pontificum,  and  then  adds,  there  is 
also  a  law  of  King  Pompilius  ("  esse  etiam,"  &c.)  on  the  same 


1  De  Rep.  ii.  14. 

3  B.  i.  S.  25,  Aiim.  7 

«  P.  178,  Occisnin. 


2  Ibid.  V.  2  ;  cf.  Dionys.  ii.  24,  63,  &c. 

*  Do  Rep.  ii.  10,  18.  «  Lib.  i.  20. 

"  Ann.  iii.  26  ;  xii.  8. 


I  Ui' 


subject  of  Opima  Spolia,  the  necessary  inference  is  that  these 
tw^o  documents  w^ere  distinct. 

Schwegler  argues^  that  the  decemviral  legislation  shows 
the  want  of  previous  written  law^s,  and  appeals  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Dionysius  that,  before  the  Twelve  Tables,  laws  con- 
sisted only  of  the  traditions  of  juristic  practice,  and  that  only 
a  little  having  the  force  of  law  had  been  wTitten  down  in 
certain  sacred  books,  the  knowledge  of  which  was  confined  to 
the  patricians.  But  the  language  of  Dionysius  is  not  half  so 
strong  as  this.  He  only  says  that  all  law  was  not  comprised 
in  writing — ovK  ev  ^pa^al<;  airavra  ra  StKata  Teray/jiipa 
(x.  1) — and  this  show^s  that  some  w\as.  All  that  we  are  con- 
tending for  is,  that  there  were  certain  w^ritten  laws  of  the 
kings,  not  that  there  was  a  complete  body  of  them,  which 
might  have  sufficed  for  all  subsequent  time.  And  to  this 
point  another  passage  of  the  same  Dionysius  may  be  cited,  not 
mentioned  by  Schwegler,  when  that  historian  alludes  to  a  law 
of  the  kingly  period  having  been  incorporated  into  the  Twelve 
Tables,  and  quotes  a  passage  from  the  ivritfen  laws  of  Numa.'-^ 

On  this  subject  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  observes:"^  "It  was  easy 
for  a  x^ontifical  scribe,  who  entered  a  rule  of  consuetudi- 
nary law  in  his  register,  to  dignify  it  with  the  name  of  a  lex 
regia,  and  attribute  it  to  Numa,  Servius,  or  one  of  the  other 
kings."  But  it  is  still  more  easy  to  make  a  conjecture  of  this 
sort,  though  it  is  not  only  against  all  evidence,  but  against  all 
probability.  For  to  think  that  codes  of  law,  the  most  sacred 
of  all  human  institutions,  could  be  trifled  w^ith — nay,  could  be 
forged — in  this  free  and  easy  manner,  and  that  too  among  a 
people  who,  as  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  tells  us  himself,  "held  so 
strictly  to  legal  and  constitutional  precedent,"  is  contrary  to 
all  experience,  and  in  fact  one  of  the  most  random  and  impos- 
sible suppositions  that  can  be  imagined. 

It  will,  perhaps,  at  all  events  be  allowed  that  wdiat  the 
iiomans  called  their  Leges  Eegi?e  were  older  than  the  laws  of 
the  Twelve  Tables  ;  for  it  is  not  improl)able  that  they  had 
sense  enough  to  discriminate  whether  they  wxre  prior  or  sub- 

1  B.  i.  S.  26. 


2   Iv  of?  kqX  oirw  y4ypairTa.i~ oiTfp  ovk  hv  ^ypaxpfu. 


ii.  27. 


■^  Vol.  i.  p.  .'',26, 


1 


Ixviii 


SOURCES    OF   KOMAN   HISTOliY. 


sequent  to  tliat  great  epoch  in  tlieir  legislation.  Nor  would 
it  have  been  easy  after  the  promulgation  of  the  Twelve  Tables, 
by  which  tlieir  jurisprudence  was  reduced  to  a  more  exact 
science,  to  pretend  that  a  law  passed  by  the  assemblies  of  the 
people  was  a  regal  law;  neitlier  is  it  very  obvious  what 
motive  there  could  have  been  for  making  such  an  attempt. 
But  the  period  which  elapsed  between  the  expulsion  of  the 
kings  and  the  decemviral  legislation  is  only  about  half  a 
century,  and  therefore  it  requires  no  great  stretch  of  faith  to 
believe  that  the  Leges  Regia3  were  really  what  they  professed 
to  be.  It  is  not  disputed  that  the  laws  of  the^Twelve  Tables 
survived  the  (^allic  conflagration.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  observes : 
"  That  the  decemviral  legislation  was  preserved  with  perfect 
fidelity  in  the  original  authentic  text  cannot  be  doubted."  ^ 
Where,  then,  is  the  improbability  that  laws  only  a  century 
or  two  older  may  also  have  survived  ?  On  tliis  subject 
Niebuhr  observes :  "  It  would  be  arbitrary  scepticism  to 
doubt  that  the  early  Roman  laws  were  written  long  before  the 
time  of  the  Decemvirs,"  ^  and,  "  The  high  antiquity  of  a  col- 
lection of  the  laws  of  the  kings  compiled  by  one  Papirius 
seems  unquestionable."^  Mere  antiquity  cannot  be  alleged 
as  a  reason  why  the  laws  of  the  Roman  kings  should  have 
perished,  for  there  are  Anglo-Saxon  laws  extant  that  are 
ten  centuries  old,  and  the  interval  between  Numa  and  the 
historical  times  is  only  about  half  that  period. 

Further  collateral  evidence  in  support  of  the  history  of  the 
regal  period  is  afforded  by  the  treaties  already  mentioned,  of 
Servius  Tidlius  with  the  Latins,  of  Tarquinius  Superbus  with 
the  Gabines,  and  the  treaty  between  Rome  and  Carthage  con- 
cluded in  the  first  year  of  the  republic.  A  treaty  made  with 
the  Latins  in  the  consulship  of  Cassius  and  Cominius  in 
B.C.  493,  only  seventeen  years  after  the  expulsion  of  the 
kings,  may  almost  be  said  to  belong  to  this  epoch.  Cicero 
speaks  of  it*  as  extant  in  his  time,  engraved  on  a  brazen 
column  which  stood  behind  the  rostra.  It  is  also  alluded  to 
by  Livy  ^  and  Dionysius,^  the  latter  of  whom  gives  the  sub- 


^>^'■    : 


■M' ' 


av  *■• 


TREATIES — BUILDINGS — STATUES. 


Ixix 


1  Vol.  i.  p.  112. 
*  Pro  Balbo,  23. 


Lect.  vol.  i.  p,  6. 
Lib.   i.  33. 


3  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  211. 
«  Lib.  vi.  95. 


stance  of  it.  Schwciiler's  conclusion,^  that  it  coidd  not  have 
been  extant  in  the  time  of  tliese  historians  because  Cicero,  in 
the  passage  cited,  says  that  it  had  lately  stood  behind  the 
rostra — "  (|Uod  quidem  nuper  in  columna  aeiiea  meminimus 
post  rostra  " — is  not  a  very  logical  one,  since  its  removal  from 
that  position  does  not  imply  its  destruction. 

These  are  all  the  literary  monuments  of  the  regal  period 
which  it  may  be  necessary  to  mention.  It  appears  to  us  that 
they  might  have  sufficed  to  preserve  the  memory  of  the  kings 
and  the  principal  events  of  their  reigns  ;  at  all  events  they 
might  have  prevented  the  history  from  being  a  mere  blank, 
so  that  even  the  names  of  the  kings  should  not  be  accurately 
known,  and  the  whole  narrative  be  nothing  more  than  a 
fantasy.  Schwegler,  after  reciting  in  the  eighth  section  of 
his  book,  the  treaties  just  mentioned,  observes  :  "  The  im- 
portance of  the  documents  just  recited  is  not  to  be  lightly 
prized  from  the  point  of  view  of  historical  criticism ;  they 
are  boundary  stones,  which  restrain  an  unbridled  and  measure- 
less scepticism.  The  alliance  of  Servius  Tullius  with  the 
Latins,  the  commercial  treaty  with  Carthage,  and  the  treaty 
of  Sp.  Cassius,  will  not  be  doubted  by  any  discreet  historical 
inquirer."  But  he  has  hardly  uttered  these  words  when  he 
goes  on  to  reverse  his  judgment  by  asserting  that  the  tradi- 
tional history  gains  nothing  by  these  monuments,  and  con- 
cludes the  paragraph  by  saying  that,  so  far  from  supporting 
it,  they  rather  serve  to  show  how  little  authenticity  it  has  ! 
We  shall  inquire,  in  the  course  of  the  following  work,  how 
far  this  judgment  may  be  well  founded  with  regard  to  such  of 
these  documents  as  come  within  its  scope. 

Besides  literary  records,  there  were  also  other  monuments, 
architectural  and  plastic,  of  the  regal  period.  Such  were  the 
walls  and  gates  of  the  Palatine  and  Servian  cities,  the  Vetus 
Capitolium,  the  temples  erected  by  Romulus,  Tatius,  and 
!N'uma,  the  Curia  Ilostilia,  the  Tullianum,  the  Cloaca  Maxima, 
the  Circus,  the  Capitoline  Temple,  &c.  In  the  plastic  way 
we  may  principally  instance  the  statues  of  the  kings  which 
stood  in  the  Capitol.     These  must  have  Itcen  erected  before  the 

1  S.  19,  Anni.  f). 


Ixx 


SOURCE.S  OF  ROMAN  HISTORY. 


republican  times,  and  most  probably  by  Tarquinius  Superbus 
when  he  finished  the  Capitol ;  they  would  have  borne  witness 
to  the  number  and  names  of  the  kin^s,  and  would  have 
formed  a  trustworthy  record,  dating  only  between  two  and 
three  centuries  from  tlie  foundation  of  the  city.  There  were, 
besides,  the  statue  of  Junius  Brutus,  of  Attus  Navius,  the 
carved  wooden  image  of  Servius  Tullius  in  the  Temple  of 
Fortune,  &c.  All  these  monuments  would  have  told  their  own 
tale,  and  have  been  indissolubly  connected  with  the  names  of 
their  founders  and  prototypes. 

Such,  then,  were  the  principal  materials  with  which  we  are 
acquainted,  which  might  have  been  used  by  writers  of  a  later 
period  for  the  early  history  of  Eome.  In  order  to  complete  that 
portion  of  our  dissertation  which  relates  to  the  external  evidence 
for  that  early  period,  it  only  remains  to  inquire  how  its  history 
has  been  treated  by  the  writers  wlio  made  it  their  subject. 

The  first  historians  of  Eome  were  Greeks.  Hieronymus, 
of  Cardia,  in  the  Thracian  Chersonese,  wdio. flourished  in  the 
fourth  century  B.C.,  appears  to  have  been  the  first  who  gave  a 
brief  survey  of  Eoman  affairs,^  in  his  history  of  the  Epigoni, 
or  Diadochi,  as  the  successors  of  Alexander  were  called.  His 
subject  led  him  to  treat  of  the  invasion  of  Italy  by  Pyrrhus, 
and  it  was  doubtless  on  this  occasion  that  he  adverted  to  the 
affairs  of  Eome.  Timseus,  of  Tauromeniuni,  in  Sicily,  was 
the  next  Greek  writer  who  handled  the  same  subject,  in  his 
history  of  Italian  and  Sicilian  affairs,  of  which  only  a  few 
fragments  remain."^  Timaeus  was  probably  born  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  and  consequently  con- 
siderably less  than  half  a  century  after  the  capture  of  Eome 
by  the  Gauls.  His  vicinity  to  ]Magna  Crrtecia  must  have 
afforded  him  an  excellent  opportunity  to  become  acquainted 
with  Italian  affairs  in  general,  and  his  history  probably  con- 
tained some  valuable  information  respecting  the  early  times 
of  Eome.  He  also  wrote  a  history  of  the  war  of  Pyrrhus  with 
the  Eomans. 

^  Dionys.  i.  6,  seq.* 

2  Siiidus,  Ti^aios  ;  cf.  Gellius,  N.A.  xi.  1,  **  Timaeus  in  historiis  quas 
oratione  Grppra  de  rohiis  popiili  Romani  composuit. " 


;-f\ 


GREEK    HISTOIMANS. 


Ixxi 


■fv'P 


The  great  historians  of  Greece  proper  knew  little  or  nothing 
about  the  Eomans.  Neither  Herodotus  nor  Thucvdidcs  once 
mentions  them,  although  the  former  historian  spent  the  last 
years  of  his  life  at  Thurii.  The  existence  of  Eome  is,  how- 
ever, sometimes  recognised  by  early  Greek  writers.  Hella- 
nicus,  who  flourished  in  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  is  said  to  have 
recorded  in  his  chronicle  of  the  priestesses  of  Juno  at  Argos, 
thatzEneas  was  the  founder  of  Eome.^  Cephalon  of  Gergithes, 
Demagoras  of  Samos,  and  the  Arcadian  poet  Agathylhis,  seem 
also  to  have  alluded  to  Eome  ;  but  though  these  were  early 
writers,  their  exact  date  is  uncertain.-  Damastes  of  Sigeum, 
a  contemporary  of  Hellanicus  and  Herodotus,  also  spoke  of 
the  foundation  of  Eome.^  Antiochus  of  Syracuse,^  and  the 
geographer  Seylax  mentioned  the  name  of  that  city.^  Tlieo- 
pompus  adverted  to  the  capture  of  Eome  by  the  Gauls.^ 
Aristotle,  wlio  was  a  contemporary  of  Theopompus,  men- 
tioned the  same  event,  and  also  adverted  to  the  le^^end  of  the 
burning  of  the  ships  by  the  Trojan  women  on  the  coast  of 
Italy.^  Heraclides  of  Pontus  also  mentioned  the  Gallic  cata- 
strophe,^ which  would  therefore  appear  to  have  created  a  great 
sensation  in  Greece.  Theophrastus,  the  pupil  of  Aristotle,  is 
said  by  Pliny ^  to  have  been  the  first  Greek  who  treated 
Eoman  affairs  at  all  diligently.  Antiiiconus,  Silenus,  and 
Diodes  of  Peparethus,  touched  upon  the  same  subject ;  but 
we  have  no  accurate  information  of  the  nature  of  their 
works,  or  even  of  the  period  in  which  they  lived. 

Polybius,  who  flourished  B.C.  204 — 122,  is  the  first  extant 
Greek  historian  from  whom  we  derive  any  information  at  all 
valuable  respecting  the  early  history  of  Eome.  Polybius  was 
one  of  the  Achoean  hostages  sent  into  Italy  in  B.C.  167,  and 
he  resided  seventeen  years  in  the  house  of  ^milius  Paulus, 
at  Eome.  In  his  "  Universal  History  "  he  treated  of  the  Second 
Punic  War,  and  prefaced  it  with  a  sketch  of  the  early  Eoman 
history  from  the  burning  of   the  city ;  but  the  only  part  of 


1  Dionys  i.  72.  ^  i^^j,] 

4  Id.  i.  12,  73.  *  Peripl.  5. 

7  Dionys.  i.  72  ;   Pint.  Cam.  22. 
»  H.  N.  iii.  9,  57. 


3  Ibid. 

«  Plin.  H.N.  iii.  9,  57. 

s  Pint.  ibid. 


Ixxii 


SOUUt'ES    OF    KOMAN    IILSTOKY. 


liis  work  still  extant  that  is  of  any  use  for  the  history  of  the 
kings,  is  the  account  of  the  Carthnginian  treaty  already 
alluded  to,  which,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  further 
on,  confirms  in  general  the  accounts  of  the  progress  of  Rome 
during  the  regal  period. 

We  are  now  arrived  at  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  who,  to 
judge  from  bulk  alone,  should  be  by  far  the  most  important 
of  all  the  writers  on  early  Eoman  history.  Of  the  life  of 
Dionvsius  little  more  is  known  than  w^hat  he  himself  tells  in 
the  introduction  to  his  w^ork.  The  date  of  his  birth  is  not 
exactly  known,  and  has  been  placed  in  the  rather  wide  interval 
between  78  and  54  B.C.  He  appears  to  have  arrived  in  Italy 
soon  after  the  battle  of  Actiuni  (B.C.  31),  and  to  have  lived 
at  Rome  two  and  twenty  years  ;  during  w^hich  period  he  made 
himself  master  of  the  Latin  tongue,  and  employed  himself  in 
collecting  the  materials  for  his  history,  by  studying  the  ancient 
annals,  and  conversing  with  the  most  learned  of  the  Romans. 
He  mentions  in  his  preface  ^  the  second  consulship  of  Claudius 
jSTero,  which  fell  in  B.C.  7,  and  his  book  was  therefore  probably 
published  about  this  time.  He  probably  subsisted  by  teaching 
the  art  of  rhetoric,  which  he  professed ;  a  calling  which  has 
not  tended  to  enhance  his  merits  as  an  historian. 

It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  work  of  Dionysius  ap- 
peared after  that  of  Livy ;  for  Niebuhr's  opinion  that  Livy  did 
not  commence  his  history  till  he  was  fifty  years  of  age,  is  alto- 
gether untenable.  The  earlier  portions  of  it  must  have  been 
written  before  the  conclusion  of  the  civil  wars.  How  else 
could  he  have  said  in  his  Prsefatio  :  "  Festinantibus  ad  licec 
nova,  quibus  jam  pridem  priBvalentis  populi  vires  s^i}?^^  confi- 
ciunt  .•  "  or,  "  Ego  contra  hoc  quoque  laboris  praemium  petam, 
ut  me  a  conspectii  malorum  qiicc  nostra  per  tot  annos  vidit  cetas, 
iantisper  certe,  dum  prisca  ilia  tota  mente  repeto,  avertaTti  1 " 
The  forces  of  a  people  which  are  still  employed  in  their  ow^n 
destruction,  the  desire  to  avert  the  eyes  from  misfortunes 
w^hich  had  so  long  afflicted,  and  must  have  still  continued  to 
afflict,  the  state,  can  refer  only  to  the  civil  wars.  At  the  same 
time,  the  first  book  affords  evidence  that  an  edition  of  it  must 

1  Lib.  i.  c.  3. 


-*■  s^ 


DIONYSIUS   OF   HALICAKNASSUS. 


Ixxiii 


i     r! 

0  1  , 

s'". 


hfll* 


have  been  republished  at  a  considerably  later  period.  Thus 
on  the  question  of  the  Spolia  Opiina  achieved  by  Cornelius 
Cossus,  Livy  tells  us  that  he  had  first  related  the  story  as  he 
found  it  in  })revious  writers,  but  afterwards  he  varied  from  it, 
when  he  heard  that  Augustus  had  inspected  the  linen  breast- 
plate of  Cossus  in  the  Temple  of  Jupiter  Feretrius,  and  had 
in  consequence  introduced  a  new  version.^  The  w^ords  in  this 
chapter,  from  "  Omnes  ante  me,"  evidently  belong  to  a  late 
edition.  And  because  Livy  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  his 
first  book  adverts  to  the  shutting  of  the  Temple  of  Janus, 
after  the  battle  of  Actiuni  in  B.C.  29,  saying  that  it  was  the 
second  occasion  of  that  ceremony  since  the  reign  of  Numa, 
while  he  does  not  notice  a  subsequent  closing  of  that  temple 
by  Augustus  in  B.C.  25,  it  has  been  concliuled  that  this  first 
book  of  the  history  was  WTitten  betw^een  the  dates  mentioned. 
But  another  passage,  tow^ards  the  end  of  the  same  book,  must 
have  been  added  after  the  complete  establishment  of  the 
empire.  For  Livy  there  suppresses  some  parts  of  Brutus's 
invective  against  Tarquinius  Superbus,  observing  that  the 
present  posture  of  affairs  rendered  it  difficult  for  writers  to 
insert  them.^     But  to  return  from  this  digression. 

The  main  oljject  of  Dionysius  in  writing  his  book  w^as, 
he  tells  us,  to  make  the  Greeks  better  acquainted  with  the 
Romans,  to  disabuse  them  of  a  prejudice  that  that  jjeople  were 
no  better  than  barbarians  ;  nay,  to  show  that  they  were  not 
only  Greeks,  but  even  more  Hellenic  than  the  Greeks  them- 
selves.^ His  work  embraced  the  history  of  Rome  from  the 
earliest  times  down  to  the  First  Punic  War,  and  w\as  intended 
as  a  supplement  to  that  of  Polybius,  whose  account  of  the 
events  previous  to  that  epoch  was  a  mere  sketch.  Of  the 
twenty  books  in  which  Dionysius  comprised  his  history,  only 
the  first  eleven  are  now  extant,  and  the  last  two  of  these  in 
a  somewhat  mutilated  condition.  Of  the  other  nine  books, 
only  some  fragments  remain. 

1  Lib.  iv.  20. 

2  "  His,  atrocioribiisqiic,  credo,  .aliis,  qua?  prccscns  rerum  indignitas  haud- 
qiiaquam  relatu  scriptoribus  facilia  siibjicit,  memoratis." — Lib.  i.  59. 

3  Thus  Pyrrhus  i.s  made  to  speak  of  them  as  dt/6pwirovi  offKardrovs  'EWi^vuy 
Koi  5i/ca<oTeiTou9,  Exf.  ed.  Diony.s.  lib.  xix.  2;  cf.  i.  89,  90,  &c. 

/ 


Ixxiv 


SOURCES    OF    ROMAN    HISTORY. 


With  some  of  the  German  critics  Dionysius  is  a  great 
favourite,  which  may  perhaps  arise  from  a  congenial  turn  of 
mind,  for  Dionysius  possessed  in  an  eminent  decree  tlie 
German  talent  for  prolixity,  and  devotes  four  books  to  the 
history  of  the  kings,  which  Livy  liad  given  in  one.  Schwegler 
cannot  sufficiently  praise  this  quality,  though  he  admits  in 
tlie  same  breath  that  it  has  been  tlie  source  of  some  egregious 
faults  and  blunders.  "  The  history  of  Dionysius,"  he  remarks,^ 
"  is  particularly  distinguished  by  its  great  fulness.  He  has 
collected  with  the  greatest  care  all  that  lie  found  scattered  in 
the  annals  of  his  predecessors.  And  if,  in  order  to  gatlicr 
up  all  the  crumbs,  and  let  nothing  be  wasted,  he  sometimes 
gives  two  divergent  narratives  of  the  same  occurrence,  and 
relates  them  as  two  different  events,  this  completeness  affords, 
nevertheless,  a  real  treasure  of  instructive  and  important 
accounts ! " 

Other  items  in  the  panegyric  of  the  same  critic  are-  that 
Dionysius  is  a  very  careful  writer ;  that  no  important  con- 
tradiction can  be  found  in  his  work  ;  that  he  detects  the 
contradictions  and  absurdities  of  the  Roman  history  ;  tliat 
he  is  very  careful  of  chronology  ;  that  his  study  of  sources 
was  extensive,  though  he  consulted  documents  only  occasion- 
ally. Lastly,  he  was  a  highly  conscientious  writer,  and  we 
may  be  sure  that  there  is  in  his  work  nothing  of  his  own 
invention,  except  the  speeches  and  the  pragmatic  reflections. 

On  this  we  may  remark  that  our  knowledge  of  early  Eoman 

history  is  not  sufficiently  complete  to  pronounce  a  confident 

opinion  on  the  accuracy  of  Dionysius.     But  if  the  absence  of 

contradictions,  as  asserted  by  Schwegler  after  Niebuhr,  is  to 

be  the  test  of  it,  then  the  opinion  breaks  down.     The  work 

of  Dionysius  contains  many  contradictions,  of  which  we  will 

here  instance  a  few  by  no  means  unimportant  ones ;  others 

there  will  be  occasion  to  notice  in  the  sequel.     In  ii.  76  the 

institution  of  the  pagi  is  ascribed  to  Numa,  and  in  iv.  15  to 

Servius  Tullius.     In  ii.  12  the  Senate  is  represented  as  elected 

by  the  tribes  and  curiae,  yet  in  iii.  67  Tarquinius  Priscus  is 

described  as  choosing  them,  and  in  v.  l/>  the  Consuls  Brutus 

1  H.  i.  S.  10!).  2  ]3„(^^i^  11  §  i4_ 


DIONYSIUS   OF   HALICARNASSUS. 


Ixxv 


and  Valerius.  In  iv.  21  the  constitution  of  Servius  Tullius  is 
said  to  have  been  a  trick  to  deceive  the  people,  while  in  other 
places  he  is  represented  as  a  most  democratic  king  (iv.  34,  37, 
40,  &c.),  and  in  v.  75  is  called  SrjfioTiKcaraTOf;  ^aGi\€v<i.  In 
iv.  3  Tarquinius  is  made  a  patrician  by  the  Eoman  people  ; 
while  in  iii.  41  we  are  told  tliat  he  was  elevated  to  that  rank 
by  King  Ancus.  In  ii.  63  Julius  is  described  as  a  descendant 
of  Ascanius,  and  a  Koman  husbandman  in  the  time  of 
Eomulus  ;  while  in  iii.  29  the  Julii  are  said  to  have  first 
come  to  Eome  after  the  capture  of  Alba  Longa.  In  iv.  51 
ridena3  is  Sabine,  and  in  v.  40  revolts  from  Eome.  In  iv.  91 
the  last  class  is  exempt  from  military  service,  and  yet  in  the 
very  same  chapter  it  is  said  that  each  of  the  193  centuries 
must  furnish  its  quota  of  soldiers. 

In  fact,  though  Dionysius  lived  twenty-two  years  in  Eome, 
he  never  obtained  a  critical  knowledge  of  the  Latin  language ; 
and  to  this  defect  many  of  his  errors  and  contradictions  must 
be  attributed.  Thus  in  describing  the  constitution  of  Servius,^ 
he  calls  the  last  century  of  the  people,  or  the  capite  cemsi,  a 
dassis  {av^ixopla)  like  the  rest,  although  that  term  could  be 
applied  only  to  those  who  bore  arms.  In  another  place  he 
says  that  Servius  built  a  temple  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber  to 
Fortuna  Virilis,^  misapprehending  the  genitive  of  fors  for 
that  oi  fortis.  Again,  inii.  12,  he  calls  the  Eomulean  senators 
Patres  Conscripti  (llarepe?  eyypacf^ot),  an  appellation  only 
given  long  afterwards  to  part  of  them. 

These  instances  may  serve  to  raise  a  doubt  whether  Diony- 
sius deserves  the  character  of  a  very  accurate  and  carefid 
writer.  "With  regard  to  his  chronology,  though  it  has  the 
appearance  of  great  accuracy,  from  his  comparison  of  dates 
with  those  of  the  Greeks,  yet  it  is  easy  to  see  how  it  was 
manufactured.  It  was  invented  out  of  his  own  head.  He 
took  the  Eoman  chronology  as  he  found  it,  and  comparing  it 
with  the  Greek,  put  down  the  Olympiads,  or  the  names  of  the 
Athenian  archons,  who  by  this  method  appeared  to  be  con- 
temporary with  certain    persons    or   events    in  the    Eoman 

^  Lib.  iv.  18. 

2  Tvxv^  V'^  dvSpfiav  irpoffr^yopivffiv,  iv.  27  ;  cf.  Van*.  L.  L.  vi.  17. 

/2 


Ixxvi 


SOURCES   OF   ROMAN   IIISTOKY. 


history.      That   this    was    his    method   may    be    shown   as 

follows : — 

During  a  scarcity  which  prevailed  at  Eome  in  the  consul- 
ship  of'^Geganius    and    Minucius,   B.C.    492,   envoys   were 
despatched  into  Sicily  to  buy  corn,  with  a  supply  of  which 
they  returned  in  the  following  year.     Livy,  in  narrating  this 
event,!  mentions  not  the  name  of  any  Sicilian  sovereign  from 
whom  the  corn  was  procured,  while  Dionysius  says^  that 
Gelon  was  then  tyrant  of  Syracuse.     Now,  on  what  authority 
did  he  name  Gelon  ?     Evidently  on  none  at  all.     For  he  says 
that  the  Koman  annalists  who  mentioned  any  Sicilian  sove- 
reign named  Dionysius;  and  he    conjectures   that   the  first 
annalist,  finding  no  name  in  the  public  records,  but  only  the 
fact  of  the  corn  coming  from  Sicily,  inserted  the  name  of 
Dionysius  at  a  guess,  and  without  searching  the  Greek  his- 
torians.    But    Dionysius   flourished  eighty-five  years   later, 
and  therefore  this  account  is  impossible. 

It  appears  from  this  passage  that  Dionysius  did  not  find 
the  name  of  Gelon  in  any  Roman  annalist,  but  that  he 
*'  searched  the  Greek  historians/'  and  finding  in  them,  as  he 
supposed,  from  a  comparison  of  the  received  chronology  of 
Eome  with  that  of  Greece,  that  Gelon  was  contemporary  with 
the  event  in  question,  he  inserted  his  name  :  a  synchronism, 
therefore,  obtained  like  all  his  other  ones,  merely  by  con- 
struction and  inference. 

With  regard  to  his  extensive  study  of  sources,  we  may 
remark  that  he  himself  records  only  the  annalists  who  had 
preceded  him,  and  conversations  with  learned  Eomans.  Such 
conversations  are  not,  perhaps,  the  best  materials  for  history, 
while  the  annalists  could  have  afforded  nothing  but  the 
gi-oundwork  of  a  compilation.  But  perhaps  Dionysius  has 
here  done  himself  an  injustice,  for  it  appears  from  some 
passages  in  his  work  that  he  referred  sometimes  to  original 
documents,  as,  for  instance,  the  Latin  and  Gabine  treaties,  and 
those  references  are  perhaps  the  most  valuable  parts  of  his 

1  Lib.  ii.  34. 

2  Lib.    vii.   1.       According   to  Clinton,    Gelon   reigned   B.C.    485  —  478; 

Dionysiu3  places  him  a  few  years  earlier. 


DIONYSIUS   OF    IIALICARNASSUS. 


Ixxvii 


work.  For  since,  as  Schwegler  says,  there  is  no  reason  to 
impugn  his  good  faith,  he  lias  thus  supplied  us  with  valuable 
evidence  on  some  important  points  of  the  early  history. 

His  invented  speeches  and  pragmatic  reflections  appear  to 
arise  from  want  of  judgment,  and,  owing  to  his  inaccurate 
knowledge,  are  most  unfortunate  specimens  of  his  ''inven- 
tion." Tliis  is  admitted  by  Schwegler,  who,  in  spite  of  his 
previous  panegyric,  proceeds  to  make  some  remarks  which 
entirely  demolish  the  character  of  Dionysius  as  an  historian. 
It  is  said  that  he  exercised  little  critical  judgment  in  selecting 
his  materials ;  that  his  point  of  view  was  quite  unhistorical, 
as  shown  by  his  pY6//?»nf^2s??ii«.s,^  of  which  Schwegler  says  in 
another  pi  ace,  ^  that  by  means  of  these  arbitrary  details  and 
literary  word-painting,  he  has  placed  all  the  early  history  in 
a  false  light.  With  regard  to  his  speeches,  some  of  them  are 
quite  impossible,— as,  for  instance,  that  which  he  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Eomulus,  and  most  of  them  ridiculous  and  without 
any  individuality  of  character.  He  had  no  historical  view, 
and  his  idea  of  the  Eoman  constitution  especially  is  founded 
on  erroneous  assumptions.  But  of  course  his  chief  fiiult  is 
that  he  believed  the  traditions  of  the  regal  period  to  be  fun- 
damentally historical.  Where  Livy  doubts,  Dionysius  relates 
all  with  the  confidence  of  an  eye-witness. 

There  is  much  truth  in  this  latter  part  of  Schwegler's 
character  of  Dionysius.  His  speeches  are  below  contempt ; 
they  are  nothing  but  specimens  of  his  art  as  a  professor  of 
rhetoric,  and  pay  no  regard  either  to  time,  or  place,  or  cha- 
racter. His  historical  details  are  still  worse,  because  they  are 
often  misleading.  His  want  of  sound  historical  judgment 
is  manifest  throughout  his  work,  and  throws  a  suspicion  on 
his  whole  narrative.  Hence  when  he  differs  from  Livy  or 
Cicero,  we  should  in  general  reject  his  testimony  ;  and  when 
he  supplies  any  facts  not  to  be  found  in  the  Eoman  authors, 
we  may  in  most  cases  abandon  them  without  hesitation.     Yet, 

1  This  expression  is  untranslatable,  but  seems  to  mean  the  supplying  of  the 
details  of  a  narrative  not  from  authentic  record,  nor  even  from  tradition,  but 
from  inference  .and  construction, — that  is,  out  of  the  writer's  own  head. 

2  K  ii.  S.  6. 


Ixxviii 


SOURCES   OF   KOMAN   HISTOKY. 


DIONYSIUS   OF   IIALICARNASSUS. 


Ixxix 


sucli  being  the  character  of  Dioiiysiiis,  he  has  been  a  most 
serviceable  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  sceptical  critics, 
who,  by  pointing  out  variations  between  his  narrative  and 
that  of  Livy  or  Cicero,  have  thus  found  a  convenient  method 
of  attack,  by  attributing  to  the  history  itself  faults  which 
in  fact  belong  only  to  the  historian. 

After  what  has  been  said,  it  will  perhaps  be  only  fair  to 
insert  Niebuhr  s  estimate  of  Dionysius.  ''  I  have  been  cen- 
sured," says  that  WTiter,i  ''for  wishing  to  find  fault  with 
Dionysius,  but  assuredly  no  one  feels  that  respect,  esteem,  and 
latitude  towards  him  which  I  feel.  The  more  I  search  the 
greater  are  the  treasures  I  find  in  him.  In  former  times,  it  was 
the  general  belief  that  whatever  Dionysius  had  more  than  Livy 
were  mere  fancies  of  his  own  ;  but,  with  the  exception  of  his 
speeches,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  that  can  be  called  in- 
vented :  he  only  worked  up  those  materials  wliich  were 
transmitted  to  him  by  other  authorities.  It  is  true  that  he 
made  more  use  of  Cn.  Gellius  and  similar  writers  tlian  of 
Cato,  and  it  is  also  true  that  he  not  unfrequently  preferred 
those  writers  who  fvirnished  abundant  materials  to  others  who 
gave  more  solid  and  substantial  information.  All  this  is  true, 
but  he  is  nevertheless  undervalued,  and  he  has  claims  to  an 
infinitely  higher  rank  than  that  which  is  usvially  assigned  to 
him.  He  worked  with  the  greatest  love  of  his  subject,  and 
he  did  not  certainly  intend  to  introduce  any  forgery." 

This  amounts  only  to  saying  that  Dionysius  was  a  com- 
piler of  the  worst  sort ;  that  he  preferred  quantity  to  quality, 
and  drew  from  Cn.  Gellius,  "  a  very  prolix  and  credulous 
writer," — "  a  second-rate  historian,  and  no  authority,"  ^  rather 
than  from  briefer,  but  more  judicious  authors,  like  Cato. 

Becker's  character  of  Dionysius  seems  more  justly  drawn, 
and  affords  little  room  for  objection.  "  A  subtle  grammarian 
and  dialectician,  and  writing  of  the  earliest  times,  about  which 
numerous  and  important  contradictions  existed,  he  undertook 
the  impossible  task  of  reconciling,  so  far  as  it  could  be  done, 
these  conflicting  accounts,  and  of  extricating  from  the  com- 
plication of  legends  what  appeared  true  and  credible.     This 

^  Lectures,  vol.  i.  p.  53.  ^  Niebuhr,  ibid.  p.  38. 


•I^:"' 

■/^v^ 


%v 


W' 


w. 


^^^ 
i^:. 


5--t-: 


prarjinatismus,   proceeding  from   a   false  view   of  legendary 
hist(jry,  good-natured,  l)ut  highly  dangerous,  and  accompanied 
with  a  certain  vanity  and  envy  of  others,  had  naturally  an  un- 
favourable influence  as  well  on  his  historical  narrative,  as  on 
his  explanation  of  the  oldest  constitutional  forms.     Hence  we 
must  always  use  him  with  caution  when  he  is  not  speaking  of 
relations  that  continued  to  exist  in  his  own  time ;  and  even 
these,  perhaps,  he  has  not  always  adequately  comprehended. 
Although  he  lived  twenty-two  years  in  Eome,  he  never  com- 
pletely overcame  the  difficulties  which  a  foreign  language  and 
foreign  customs  offer  to  a  stranger.     Hence  we  may  point  to 
some  gross  mistakes  ;    as,  for  instance,  when   he    translates 
Te7nj)lum  Fortis  Fortimcehj  dvSpeLa<i  Tvxv^  (i^"-  ^7) ;  or,  speak- 
ing of  the  Colline  Salii  (ii.  70),  dv  to  l€po(f>v\dKiov  eVl  rov 
KoWivov  \6(\)ov  (if  the  reading  be  correct) ;  or  of  Dins  Fidius, 
eV  iepco  Atb<;  YIlcttlov,  ov  'VcofiatoL  ^dyKTov  KoXovaiv  (iv.  58). 
The  double  narrative  also  concerning  Cincinnatus  (x.  17  and 
24),  is  doubtless  a  misapprehension.^     When  such  errors  can 
be  pointed  to,  we  cannot  avoid  the  suspicion  that  where  his 
accounts   are  unsupported,  or  contradicted  by  those  of  other 
writers,  a  misapprehension  may  be  possible.     For  the  rest, 
his  great  industry,  and  his  zealous  desire  to  attain  the  greatest 
possible  accuracy,  deserve  to  be  recognised.     He   seems,  by 
his  allusions  to  them,  to  have  often  consulted  documents,  when 
such  existed  ;  and  this  would  ap])ear  still  more  plainly  if  that 
part  of  his  work  was  extant  which  treated  of  the  times  when 
such  public  sources  were  more  abundant.     Nor  did  he  neglect 
private  documents,  as  he  appeals  expressly  to  the  Commen- 
tarii  Censorum."  ^ 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  also  gives  a  depreciating  character  of 
Dionysius  as  an  historian,-^  though  he  often  avails  himself  of 
the  authority  of  that  writer  to  controvert  a  statement  of  Livy, 
or  to  found  on  the  discrepancy  of  these  two  authors  an  im- 
putation of  discrepancy  in  the  tradition.  In  fact,  Dionysius 
has  done  more  harm  to  the  early  Eoman  history  by  his  inven- 
tions, mistakes,  and  ^;r«^7?^rt^^s7?^^f5,  than  he  has  done  good  by 

^  For  other  siiiiihir  blunders  see  Waelismutli,  Aelt.  Gesch.  d.  2,  St.  S.  47. 
2  Rijui.  Alterth.  B.  i.  S.  49,  f.  ^  Credibility,  kv.  vol.  i.  p.  240. 


■a#:i'' 


Ixxx 


SOURCES   OF    ROMAN    HISTORY. 


FIRST    LATIN    WRITERS. 


Ixxxi 


the  few  additional  sources  that  he  has  indicated,  or  by  his 
testimony  to  the  existence  of  ancient  documents  and  historical 
memorials. 

The  remaining  Greek  writers  of  Eoman  history  need  not 
detain  us.  Diodorus,  who  was  a  somewhat  older  contemporary 
of  Dionysius,  probably  gave  an  account  of  the  Eoman  kings 
in  the  earlier  books  of  his  "  Universal  History ; "  ^  but  of 
these  a  few  excerpts  are  all  that  remain.  Diodorus  appears 
to  have  been  as  injudicious  an  historian  as  Dionysius,  and 
we  have  not,  perhaps,  much  reason  to  regret  the  loss  of  his 
account  of  the  regal  period. 

Plutarch,  several  of  whose  biographies,  as  well  as  his 
''Eoman  Questions,"  and  "Fortune  of  the  Eomans,"  relate  to 
early  Eoman  history  and  antiquities,  was  probably  born 
about  A.D.  46.  Since  by  his  own  confession  ^  he  was  only 
imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  Latin  tongue,  his  writings 
cannot  be  regarded  as  an  authentic  source  of  Eoman  history. 
Owing  to  this  defect,  he  had  recourse  chiefly  to  Greek 
writers  for  his  materials ;  as  Diodes  of  Peparethus,  Zeiio- 
dotus,  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  and  others  ;  and  especially 
to  Juba  II.  king  of  Mauritania,  who,  among  other  things, 
wrote  in  Greek  a  history  of  Eome.  Plutarch,  however, 
sometimes  cites  Eoman  authorities;  as  Fabius  Pictor,  who 
also  wrote  in  Greek,  Calpurnius  Piso,  Valerius  Antias,  and 
Yarro.  His  frequent  use  of  the  romancer  Valerius  Antias 
shows  how  little  reliance  can  be  placed  on  his  judgment  and 
knowledge.  Niebuhr  remarks  of  Plutarch  :  "  He  worked 
with  great  carelessness,  and  therefore  requires  to  be  read 
with  much  discretion.^ 

Appian,  who  lived  a  generation  after  Plutarch,  gave  in 
the  first  book  of  his  Eoman  history  an  account  of  the  regal 
period.  It  is  lost,  and,  even  if  it  had  survived,  it  would 
hardly  have  been  of  much  service,  as  it  was  probably  a  mere 
abridgment  of  Dionysius. 

The  only  Greek  work,  besides  that  of  Polybius,  treating  of 
the  early  period  of  Eoman  history,  whose  loss  need  occasion  us 

'  Heyne,  De  font.  Hist.  Diod.  in  Diod.  0]>p.  i.  p.  Ixxvi.  f.  (ed.  Bip.). 
2  Yit.  Demosth.  2.  ^  Lectures,  vol.  i.  p.  70. 


■■■i 


'5s* 


much  regret,  is  that  of  Dion  Cassius.  This  author  wrote  in 
the  early  part  of  the  third  century.  His  history  of  Eome  in 
eighty  books  began  from  the  earliest  period  and  was  carried 
down  to  A.D.  229  ;  but,  unfortunately,  of  the  first  twenty-four 
books  only  fragments  remain.  Niebuhr  says  of  him  :  ''  He 
did  not  acquiesce  in  the  information  he  gathered  from  Livy  : 
he  went  to  the  sources  themselves ;  he  wrote  the  early  period 
of  Eoman  history  quite  independent  of  his  predecessors,  and 
only  took  Fabius  for  his  guide.  The  early  constitution  was 
clear  to  him,  and  when  he  speaks  of  it,  he  is  very  careful  in 
his  expressions.  He  has  great  talents  as  an  historian."  ^  But 
Niebuhr's  assertion  about  his  sources  is  evidently  a  random 
one  ;  and  other  German  writers  are  of  opinion  that  he 
made,  at  all  events,  no  critical  use  of  the  older  writers. ^ 
Yet  he  appears  not  to  have  servilely  followed  either  Livy 
or  Dionysius. 

Later  Greek  compilers,  such  as  Zonaras  and  Lydus,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  mention,  and  we  will  now  advert  to  the 
Eomans  who  have  treated  of  their  own  history. 

The  first  Latin  literature,  like  that  of  most  nations,  was 
in  verse,  and  its  earliest  productions  were  dramatic.  Livius 
Andronicus  first  brought  upon  the  stage  a  play  in  the  Latin 
tono-ue  about  the  vear  B.C.  240.  He  was  soon  followed  by 
Kievius,  and  at  a  somewhat  later  period  by  Ennius,  who  is 
thought  to  have  been  born  the  year  Livius  began  to  exhibit. 
The  last  two  poets  are  connected  with  our  subject  by  their 
having  written  historical  poems.  Naivius  composed  a  history 
of  the  First  Punic  War  in  Saturnian  metre,  and  Ennius  a 
history  of  Eome  in  eighteen  books  in  hexameter  verse,  which 
he  called  Annales.  The  first  Eoman  historians  who  wrote 
in  prose,  Q.  Fabius  Pictor  and  L.  Cincius  Alimentus,  were 
about  contemporary  with  Ennius  ;  ^    but  they  adopted  the 

1  Lectures,  vol.  i.  ji.  73. 

2  Becker,  B.  i.  S.  53  ;  Wilmans,  De  fontt.  et  auctorit.  Dionis  Cassii. 

3  We  cannot  here  enter  into  the  questions  whether  Q.  Fabius  I'ictor 
wrote  in  Greek  or  Latin,  or  in  both  languages  ;  or  wliether  there  was  more 
than  one  annalist  so  named.  Against  the  express  testimony  of  Dionysius 
that  he  wrote  in  Greek  (i.  6),  we  see  but  little  force  in  the  arguments  from 
induction,  most  of  which  are  very  easily  answered.     On   this  subject   see 


^  «.!><" 

# 


Ixxxii 


SOURCES  OF  ROMAN   HISTORY. 


FABIUS,   CINCIUS,   CATO,   ETC. 


Ixxxiii 


Greek  language ;  a  fact  wliicli  shows  that  no  Latin  prose 
literature  yet  existed. 

It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  works  of  the  first  Eoman 
historians  contained  the  substance  of  the  history  of  the  regal 
period  much  as  we  find  it  in  the  narratives  of  later  authors. 
The  question  therefore  arises,  From  ^^hat  sources  did  they 
derive  their  materials  ? 

If  there  is  any  truth  in  the  view  which  we  have  adopted, 
that  there  existed  a  collection  of  public  annals,  of  which, 
at  all  events,  a  considerable  part  had  escaped  the  Gallic 
conflagration,  while  that  which  was  burnt  had  been  restored 
so  well  as  circumstances  would  permit,  there  will  be  no 
difficulty  in  answering  this  question.  They  must  have  drawn 
from  the  sources  thus  provided.  Indeed,  we  have  the  express 
testimony  of  Dionysius  that  they  did  so.^  Livy  expressly  tes- 
tifies to  the  diligence  of  Cincius  in  consulting  ancient  monu- 
ments. From  that  annalist  mentioning  the  driving  of  the 
davits  at  Volsinii,  it  appears  that  his  researches  were  not 
confined  to  Eome ;  and  therefore,  a  fortiori^  we  may  give  him 
credit  for  an  industrious  use  of  Eoman  monuments.  The 
assertion  of  Plutarch  ^  that  Fabius  Pictor  mostly  followed 
Diodes  of  Peparethus — an  author  mentioned  by  nobody  else, 
for  the  insertion  of  his  name  in  Festus  is  the  work  of  Scaliger 
or  Ursinus — is  too  absurd  to  demand  attention ;  though  it 
is  of  course  eagerly  seized  on  by  the  sceptical  critics.^  If  it 
be  denied  that  any  public  or  private  monuments  were  in 
existence,  or  that  they  were  used  by  the  first  literary  annalists, 
then  only  two  hypotheses  remain  by  which  we  can  account 
for  the  origin  of  the  early  Eoman  history :  it  must  either  have 
been  founded  upon  popular  tradition,  or  it  must  have  been 
nothing  but  a  fiction  and  a  forgery.  These  two  sources  do 
not,  of  course,  exclude  each  other,  and  it  might  be  asserted 

Vossius,  De  Hist.  Lat.  lib.  i.  c.  3 ;  Closset,  Historiogr.  des  Remains, 
Developpement,  No.  ii. ;  Becker,  Ei3m.  Altertli.  B.  i.  S.  39,  Aniii.  72,  &c. 

^  As  in  a  passage  before  quoted  :  toctoutov  ix6vov  iv  reus  apxaio'^^  (vpojv  ava- 
ypa<peus  .  Cf.  i.  73,  €/c  iraKaiuv  fxivroi  xSyuu  iv  tepaTs  SeArots  croo^o^ivoov  %Ka(Tr6s 
ris  irapaKa^wu  du4ypaxl/€.  ^  Rom.  3. 

3  See  Becker,  Rom.  Altertli.  i.  39.  Becker's  argument  in  support  of  it, 
from  Fabius  having  written  in  Greek,  is  in  the  highest  degi'ec  absurd. 


A**- 


that  the  history  is  partly  traditional,  partly  feigned  or  forged. 
The  examination  of  these  two  hypotheses  belongs  i)roperly 
to  the  internal  evidence,  and  we  therefore  postpone  it  to  the 
second  part  of  this  dissertation. 

The  next  two  Eoman  historians  in  the  order  of  time  were 
C.  Acilius   and  A.  Postumius   Alljinus.      They   were   con- 
temporary with  Cato,  and  flourished  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  second  century  B.C.     These  annalists  also  wrote  in  Greek. 
^I.  Porcius  Cato  was  the  first  author  who  attempted  a  Eoman 
history  in  Latin  prose.     Yet  what  a  predilection  for  Greek 
literature  still  lingered  among  the  Eomans  may  be  inferred 
from  the  well-known  fact  that  Cato,  with  all  his  national 
prejudices,  applied  himself  at  an  advanced  age  to  the  study 
of  it.     It  was  also  at  this  period  of  his  life  that  he  wrote  his 
Origines,  so  called,  according  to  Cornelius  !N'e})Os,^   because 
in  the  second  and  third  books  was  contained  an  account  of 
the  origin  of  the  Italian  cities.     The  first  book  comprised  the 
history  of  the  kings  of  Eome,  the  fourth  book  contained  the 
First  I^unic  War,  and   the   remaining  books  contained   the 
history  down  to  Cato's  own  time.    The  industry  and  diligence 
of  Cato    are    commended   by  ancient   waiters ;  ^    his    strong 
practical  sense,  and  blunt  and  honest  character,  forbid  us  to 
think  that  he  introduced  any  inventions  into  his  writings,  or 
adopted  accounts  which  he  did  not  sincerely  believe  to  be 
genuine  :  though  his  historical  judgment  is,  of  course,  open 
to  criticism,  and  he   seems  to  have  adopted  too  readily  the 
legends  respecting  the  foundation  of  the  Italian  cities.     The 
elevated  rank  of  the  first  Eoman  annalists  is,  in  some  degree, 
a  guarantee  of  their  good  faith.     They  were  not  authors  by 
profession,  writing  for  profit,  or  even  mere  literary  fame  ;  their 
motive  rather  was  to  give  their  countrymen  an  account  of 
those  events  in  wliicli  their  ancestors  and  connexions  had 
played  an  honourable  part.     It  was  not  till  the   declining 
days  of  the  republic  that  historical  writing  fell  into  meaner 
hands.     L.  Otacilius  Pilitus,  who  had  been  tutor  to  Pompey, 
was  the  first  libertinus  who  composed  a  history.^ 

1  Vit.  Cat.  3.  2  Xepos,  loc.  cit.;  Veil.  Tat.  i.  7,  4. 

=*  Suet.  De  Ciar.  Rhcl.  c.  3. 


Ixxxiv 


SOURCES   OF   nOMAX   HISTORY. 


Cato  was  soon  followed  by  other  Latin  annalists,  of  whom 
we  shall  mention  only  the  principal.  One  of  the  iirst  of 
these  was  Lucius  Cassius  Hemina,  who  wrote  a  history  of 
Eome  from  the  earliest  times,  in  four  books.  He  was  fol- 
lowed by  L.  Calpurnius  Piso  Frugi,  who  flourished  in  the 
time  of  the  Gracchi,  whom  he  appears  to  have  opposed.  He 
was  consul  in  B.C.  133,  and  censor  in  B.C.  120.  Contemporary 
with  him  was  C.  Sempronius  Tuditanus,  consul  in  B.C.  129, 
whose  work  also  commenced  from  the  earliest  times. 

All  the  works  hitherto  mentioned  appear  to  have  been 
written  in  the  shortest  and  driest  manner,  and  in  a  certain 
rude  and  ancient  simplicity  of  style.  Cn.  Gellius,  who  was 
contemporary  with  Piso  and  Hemina,  was  the  first  who 
wrote  a  voluminous  Ptoman  history,  which  must  have  treated 
copiously  of  the  regal  times,  as  the  treaty  of  Romulus  with 
Tatius  was  not  related  till  the  third  book.  This  prolixity 
savours  more  of  the  author  by  profession  ;  nor  does  it  appear 
that  Gellius  held  any  high  post  in  the  state.  We  may  con- 
clude that  his  work  somewhat  resembled  in  style  that  of 
Dionysius ;  and — what  does  not  give  us  any  high  idea  of 
the  value  of  his  work — he  seems  to  have  rationalized  and 
modernized  the  early  history.  Valerius  Antias,  who  flourished 
a  little  later,  was  a  writer  of  the  same,  or  perhaps  rather  a 
worse,  stamp.  Livy  gives  him  a  very  bad  character,  and 
accuses  him  of  falsehood,  invention,  and  exaggeration.^  At 
the  same  time  lived  Q.  Claudius  Quadrigarius,  whose  narrative, 
however,  does  not  seem  to  have  embraced  the  period  before 
the  capture  of  Rome  by  the  Gauls.  Also  C.  Licinius  Macer, 
who  was  impeached  by  Cicero  for  extortion  in  his  prsetorship 
in  B.C.  66,  and  escaped  by  suicide  a  sentence  of  condemnation. 
Macer  would  appear  from  notices  in  Livy  to  have  diligently 
consulted  ancient  records  and  monuments,  though  he  appears 
not  to  have  been  altogether  free  from  the  prevailing  inclina- 
tion to  modernize  the  ancient  history. 

Cicero  also  claims  a  place  among  the  Roman  annalists, 
on  account  of  the  short  sketch  which  he  gives  of  the  early 
history  in  the  second  book  of  his  Republic.     It  is  valuable 

^  8ce  Livy,  iii.  5,  8,  31  ;  xxvi.  4l>  ;  x.wiii.  10,  &c. 


PISO,   ETC. — CICERO — VARRO. 


Ixxxv 


in  spite  of  its  briefness,  as  being  the  only  extant  account 
of  that  period,  though  in  a  mutilated  condition,  from  the 
hand  of  a  Latin  writer  before  the  time  of  Livy.  From  a 
passage  in  it  some  writers  have  concluded^  that  the  sub- 
stance of  it  was  taken  from  Polybius  ;  but  all  the  inference 
the  passage  justifies  is,  that  Cicero  followed  the  chronology 
of  the  Greek  historian.  Niebuhr,  on  the  other  hand,  is  of 
opinion^'  that  Cicero  derived  the  greater  part  of  his  infor- 
mation from  Atticus,  who  had  likewise  investigated  Roman 
history.  We  may  at  all  events  conclude  that  Cicero  did 
not  make  any  original  researches  for  so  slight  a  sketch. 
Its  chief  value  therefore  is,  that  it  shows  Cicero's  notions 
of  the  early  history  to  have  agreed  in  most  of  the  essential 
points  with  the  narrative  of  Livy  :  though  there  are  a  few 
marked  discrepancies,  and  probably  mistakes,  which  ])eihaps 
arose  from  carelessness.  Occasional  references  to  Roman 
history  are  also  found  in  Cicero's  other  works ;  but  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  made  a  thorough  study  of  it,  or  even  of  the 
Roman  constitution. 

About  this  time  a  vast  number  of  historians  ("  scriptorum 
turba,"  Liv.  Praef.)  appears  to  have  arisen,  each  endeavouring 
to  throw  some  new  light  on  Roman  history;  but  for  the 
most  part  their  works  have  perished,  and  the  names  only 
of  a  few,  with  some  fragments  of  their  writings,  have  come 
down  to  us.  M.  Terentius  Varro,  a  contemporary  of  Cicero, 
styled  from  his  great  learning  "  doctissimus  Romanorum," 
wrote  many  books  on  Roman  antiquities.  The  only  works 
of  his  which  could  really  be  called  historical  were  his  Annales, 
which  must  have  been  tolerably  copious  for  the  early  history, 
as  it  appears  from  Charisius^  that  the  reign  of  Servius  Tullius 
occurred  in  the  third  book ;  and  a  history  of  the  Second 
Punic  War.  His  other  works  cannot  properly  be  called 
historical,  though  they  contained  valuable  materials  for 
history.     Such  were  his  De  Vita  Populi  Romani,  De  Initiis 

1  See  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  94,  The  passage,  wliich  refers  to  the  years  of 
Numa,  runs  as  follows  :  "  Sequamur  enim  potissiiiunn  Polybium  nostnim,  quo 
nemo  fnit  in  exquirenJis  temporibns  diligentior,"  Rep.  ii.  14  ;  cf.  Becker,  i.  48. 

2  Lectures,  i.  45.  ^  Lib  i. 


Ixxxvi 


SOURCES    OF   ROMAN    HISTORY. 


TITUS    LIVIUS. 


IxXXVL 


Urbis  EoiiicT,  De  Eebus  Urbanis,  De  Eepiiblica,  De  Eebiis 
Trojanis,  &c. ;  some  of  which,  however,  were  probably  only 
portions  of  his  Antiquitates.  His  book  De  Lingua  Latina, 
of  which  a  considerable  part  is  extant,  contains  many  notices 
of  Eoraan  antiquities. 

Titus  Pomponius  Atticus,  the  friend  of  Cicero,  appears  to 
have  drawn  up  a  scheme  of  Eoman  history  apparently  in 
a  tabular  form,  which  he  called  Annalis.  It  recorded  in 
chronological  order  every  law,  every  treaty,  and  every  war, 
while  the  histories  of  distinguished  families  were  interwoven 
in  it.^  He  seems  also  to  have  written  the  history  of  several 
Eoman  families  separately,  as  that  of  the  Gens  Junia,  at 
tlie  request  of  Brutus  ;  of  the  Marcelli,  Fabii,  ^milii,  &c. 
^Materials  for  such  biographies  must  therefore  have  been 
extant.  It  may  be  said  that  such  sources  were  polluted  by 
partiality  and  family  pride ;  but  one  biography  of  a  leading 
family  would  be  corrective  of  another,  and  there  would  always 
be  critics  enough  to  denounce  and  expose  pretensions  that 
were  too  egregious.  Indeed  Pliny  tells  us  that  IVIessalla 
Corvinus,  who  flourished  in  the  reign  of  Augustus,  wrote 
his  book  De  Eomanis  Familiis  for  that  very  purpose.^ 

About  the  same  time,  Q.  ^lius  Tubero  wrote  a  history 
of  Eome  from  its  origin,  which  is  sometimes  quoted  by  Livy 
and  Dionysius.  The  w^ork  of  Sallust  did  not  touch  upon 
the  early  period  of  Eome.  Cornelius  ISTepos,  the  friend  of 
Cicero,  Atticus,  and  Catullus,  wrote  an  epitome  of  universal 
history,  in  which  the  facts  of  the  early  Eoman  history  must 
have  been  inserted. 

We  are  now  arrived  at  the  greatest  of  the  Eoman  historians, 
whose  authority  and  reputation  have  been  so  much  attacked 
in  recent  times.  As  Livy  is  the  chief  and  best  source  for 
the  history  of  Eome,  his  work  has,  of  course,  been  sub- 
jected to  the  most  minute  and  searching  examination  by  the 
sceptical  critics.  That  from  such  an  ordeal  it  should  have 
come  out  totally  unscathed  was  liardly  to  be  expected. 
Livy's  materials,  in  the  earlier  part  of  his  subject,  were  too 
scanty  and  unsatisfactory  not  to  leave  here  and  there  a  loop- 

1  Corn.  Kep.  Att,  18.  2  jj.  N.  xxxv.  2,  §  8;  cf.  xxxiv.  38. 


r- 


liole  for  attack;  and  yet  we  will  venture  to  say,  that  the 
success  of  his  assailants  has  not  been  very  great  or  astonish- 
ing. A  considerable  part  of  their  charges  is  founded  on 
their  own  misconceptions  of  the  Eoman  history  and  con- 
stitution. Thus  we  find  Schwegler  enumerating  ^  among 
Livy's  ''  blunders  "  that  he  holds  the  Patres  who  assumed  the 
government  when  the  tlirone  was  vacated  to  have  been  the 
Senate  (Lib.  i.  17,  32)  ;  that  the  Patres  Auctores  who  con- 
firmed the  resolutions  of  the  people  were  also  senators  (Lib. 
i.  17)  ;  that  he  misunderstands  in  like  manner  the  term 
patres,  when  he  considers  Patres  IMinorum  Gentium  to  be 
the  hundred  new  senators  created  by  Tarquinius  Priscus. 
Both  these  acts,  it  is  said,  cannot  have  been  identical,  be- 
cause Tarquin,  according  to  consentient  tradition,  doubled 
the  patrician  races  (the  Patres),  but  augmented  the  Senate 
only  by  a  third. 

We  have  examined  these  points  in  their  proper  places  in 
the  sequel  of  this  work,  and  need  not  therefore  enter  here 
into  a  discussion  of  them.  AVe  have  endeavoured  to  show 
that  the  Patres  who  became  Interreges  were  really  the  Senate  ; 
that  the  Patres  who  gave  their  audoritas  were  also  the 
senators,  as  w^ell  as  the  Patres  Minorum  Gentium  created  by 
Tarquin;  that  it  is  not  true,  nor  handed  down  by  "consentient 
tradition,"  that  Tarquin  doubled  the  patrician  races,  or  stem 
tribes,  and  augmented  the  Senate  only  by  a  third. ^  It  may 
be  true,  as  Schwegler  goes  on  to  complain,  that  Livy,  when 
speaking  of  ancient  matters,  sometimes  uses  phrases  per- 
taining to  them  in  the  more  modern  sense  which  they  had 
in  his  own  time ;  but  the  question  is,  wliether  such  a  use 
of  them  would  for  a  moment  have  puzzled  a  Eoman,  though 
such  may  be  its  effect  upon  us,  who  know  the  language  only 
through  dictionaries.  We  cannot  believe  that  Livy  should  not 
have  known  the  true  meaning  of  such  words  as  coiicilium, 
jpopulus,  contio,  &c.,  and  the  imputation  on  his  knowledge  is 
probably  only  the  result  of  our  own  ignorance.  It  w^ould  be 
impossible  within  our  limits  to  examine  every  charge  of  this 

1  B.  i.  S.  1C8,  f. 

2  See  helow,  p.  130,  seq.  ;  254,  scqq.  ;  287,  srq.  ;  347,  scq. 


Ixxxviii 


SOURCES    OF   ROMAN    IIISTORV. 


sort ;  such  an  undertaking  would  rather  belong  to  a  regular 
edition  of  Livy  ;  and  even  if  it  should  be  proved  that  he  may 
now  and  then  have  inadvertently  used  a  word  improperly, 
still,  in  any  candid  view  of  the  matter,  this  forms  no  serious 
drawback  to  the  general  value  of  his  testimony. 

ISTor  will  we  enter  into  the  question  whether  Livy's  con- 
ception of   Roman  history  was  that  of  a  philosopher  or  a 
statesman.     For  the  purpose  of  the  present  volume  it  suffices 
to  inquire  whether  he  related  the  facts  of  the  early  history 
with  sood  faith  and  also  with  discrimination.     His  work  is 
universally  allowed  to  be  characterized  by  simplicity,  can- 
dour,  and  a  love  of  truth ;    and  those  qualities  are  better 
guarantees  for  the  fidelity  of  his  narrative  than  all  the  philo- 
sophy in  the  world.     His  pre-eminent  merit,  so   far  as   our 
object  is  concerned,  is,  that  he  faithfully  followed  the  ancient 
sources.     This  is  admitted  by   Schwegler,   who   says:   "Er 
iribt  die  alte  Sme  verhaltnissmassig  treu  und  unverfalscht 
wieder."^     To  the    same    effect   Lachmann   observes,  in  his 
elaborate  treatise  on  Livy  and  his  sources  :  "  Sunima  in  eo 
erat  rerum  et  auctorum  antiquorum  reverentia,  et  fides  ac 
religio,  qua  eos  sequutus  est,  nee  nova  mirabiliaque  narrandi, 
nee  causas  rationesque  rerum  ex  suo  ingenio  addendi  cupi- 
ditate,  nee  pnejudicatis  opinionibus  partiumque  studio  cor- 
rupta"  .  .  .  "Cum  fide  antiquos  sequitur,  et  veritatem  sub 
mythorum  involucris  latentem  non  eruit  sed  illa?sam  servavit, 
ubi  Dionysius  recentiorum  exornationes  aut  ingenium  suum 
sequutus  omnia  auxit  et  ipsis  verbis  recentiora  teinpora  pro- 
duxit."  ^     Wachsmuth  admits  that  Livy's  annalistic  method, 
though  not  philosophical,  is  a  proof  that  he  followed   his 
sources,  and  hence  accords  to  him  an  authority  equal  to  that 
of  the  old  annalists.3    And  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  is  also  of  opinion* 
that  Livy  framed  his  narrative  after  Fabius  Pictor,  Cincius, 
and  Cato,  quoting  in  corroboration  of  it  the  following  sentence 
from   Niebuhr :    "  One   may   assume  that   Livy   took  every 
circumstance  in  his  narrative  from  some  of  his  predecessors, 

1  B.  i.  S.  105. 

2  De  Fontibus  Hist.  T.  Livii,  Pars  Prior,  p.  83.' 

3  Aeltere  Gesch.  S.  37,  42.  *  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  248. 


TITUS   LIVIUS 


Ixxxix 


and  never  added  anything  of  his  own  except  the  colouring 

of  his  style." 

We  may  consider,  then,  that  we  possess  in  Livy's  narrative 
of  the  regal  period  the  substance  of  the  history  as  given  by 
the  earliest  annalists  ;  and  its  general  resemblance  to  what 
we  find  in  other  authors —as,  for  example,  Cicero  and  Diony- 
sius— confirms  this  assumption.  In  this  view  of  the  matter, 
the  credibility  of  the  early  lloman  history  rests  almost 
entirely  on  the  good  faith  of  the  annalists  in  question,  a 
subject  to  which  we  have  aleady  alluded,  and  to  which  we 
shall  again  have  occasion  to  advert  in  the  second  part  of 
this  dissertation.  But  in  Livy's  work  we  also  possess  the 
advantage  of  having  these  early  traditions  winnowed  from 
the  heap  after  a  searching  critical  examination.  This  is 
evident  from  a  comparison  of  his  narrative  with  that  of 
Dionysius.  Livy  was  a  highly  judicious,  not  to  say  sceptical, 
writer.  His  incredulity  has,  in  fact,  been  of  no  slight  service 
to  the  assailants  of  the  history,  who  have  eagerly  caught  at 
all  his  doubts  and  admissions  in  support  of  their  arguments. 
But  this  scepticism  renders  what  remains  all  the  more  valu- 
able. And  though  we  find  in  Livy's  work  some  of  those 
fables  which  his  countrymen  believed  to  be  inseparably 
connected  with  their  glory,  yet  the  attentive  reader  will 
easily  discriminate  what  traditions  the  historian  himself 
accepted,  and  what  he  rejected. 

Of  the  remaining  Latin  historians  of  Rome  it  is  not  necessary 
to  speak.  Those  of  any  note  that  are  still  extant  contain 
only  passing  allusions  to  the  earlier  history  ;  while  such  com- 
pilers as  Florus,  Eutropius,  Orosius,  and  others  of  the  like 
stamp,  merit  not  the  attention  of  the  critical  inquirer.  We 
will  therefore  pass  on  to  the  second  part  of  the  subject  of  this 
dissertation,  and  proceed  to  examine  the  internal  evidence 
connected  with  the  early  Roman  history. 


INTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 

The  critics  who  deny  that  the  early  Roman  history  was 
derived  from  the  sources  before  enumerated  are  necessarily 

fJ 


xc 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


NIEBUHU'S   POETICAL   THEORY. 


XCl 


bound  to  show  in  what    manner    it   originated.       For    this 
purpose  several  hypotheses  have  been  formed.      They  rest,  of 
course,  on  an  examination  of  the  history  such  as  it  has  come 
down  to  us  in  the  works  of  the  extant  historians,  and  are 
therefore  for  the  most  part  founded  on  inference  and  conjec- 
ture ;  supported,  so  far  as  it  may  be  possible,  by  any  passages 
in  ancient  authors  that  may  seem  to  favour  these  conjectures. 
The  objections  to  the  extant  history,  which  are  supposed  to  be 
fatal  to  the  assumption  that  it  can  have  been  founded  on  any 
authentic  records,  are  drawn  from  its  alleged  general  improba- 
bility, and  sometimes  even  impossibility,  which  are  said  to  be 
displayed  in  the  supernatural  events  wliich  it  records,  in  the 
contradictions  which  it  contains,  and  in  the  confusion  whicli 
marks  its  chronology.     The  extant  history  being  deemed,  from 
these  considerations,  to  be  in  great  part,  if  not  wholly,  ficti- 
tious, though  some  small  part  of  it  may  possibly  rest  on  oral 
tradition,  some  critics  are  of  opinion  that  the  great  bulk  of  it 
must  have  been  derived  from  ancient  poems,  others  that  it  is 
a  downright  forgery,  and  others  again — which  seems  to  be 
now  the  favourite  hypothesis — that  it  is  founded  on  aetiology 
and  symbolization  ;    that  is,   either  on   fables   intended   to 
explain  the  origin  and  causes  of  the  different  names  that  are 
found  in  the  early  history,  or  of  stories  invented  to  symbolize 
some  abstract  ideas  Avhich  the  early  Eomans  are  supposed  to 
have  been  incapable  of  expressing  in  words.    We  will  examine 
each  of  these  hypotheses  in  their  order,  and  we  will  then 
proceed  to  investigate  the  charge  of   improbability  or   im- 
possibility. 

The  theory  that  the  early  Eoman  history  is  founded  on 
ancieht  poems  was  brouglit  forward  by  Niebuhr,^  and  enjo3^ed 
awhile  immense  favour.  AVe  may  be  indebted  to  it  in  this 
country  for  Dr.  Arnold's  "  History,"  and  for  Lord  Macaulay's 
"  Lays  of  Ancient  Eome."     But  it  is  now  going  out  of  fashion, 


1  It  did  not  altogether  originate  with  Niebnhr  ;  Perizonins  had  alhuled  to 
such  a  source  in  his  Animadvv.  Hist.  c.  6.  See  Niebuhi's  Rom.  Gesch.  B.  i. 
S.  268,  flf.  (4te  Aufi.)  and  his  Lectures  (Eng.  transl.  edited  hy  Dr.  Schmitz), 
vol.  i.  pp.  12,  17,  &c. 


4 


'.-c^- 


■^ 


■5* 


and  indeed,  as  we  shall  endeavour  to  show,  it  is  altogether 

untenable.^ 

One  sort  of  historical  songs,  according  to  Niebuhr,  were 
those  sung  at  banquets  in  praise  of  distinguished  men,  as  we 
learn  on  the  authority  of  Cato,  quoted  in  the  following  pas- 
sage from  Cicero :— "  Gravissimus  auctor  in  Originibus  dixit 
Cato,  morem  apud  majores  hunc  epularum  fuisse,  ut  deinceps, 
qui  accubarent,  canerent  ad  tibiam  clarorum  virorum  laudes 
atque  virtutes."^  The  custom  is  also  alluded  to  by  Varro  :  ^ 
"  (Aderant)  in  conviviis  pueri  modesti  ut  cantarent  carmina 
antiqua,  in  quibus  laudes  erant  majorum,  assa  voce,  et  cum 
tibicine."  The  proper  office  of  the  Camenae  was  supposed  to 
be  to  sing  the  praises  of  the  ancients.^ 

But,  among  his  quotations  on  this  subject,  Niebuhr  has 
omitted  one  which  shows  that  this  kind  of  songs,  and  the 
singers  of  them,  were  held  in  no  great  esteem.  Cicero,  in 
another  passage  of  his  Tusculan  Questions,  says  : — "  Quam- 
quam  est  in  Originibus,  solitos  esse  in  epulis  canere  convivas 
ad  tibicinem  de  clarorum  hominum  virtutibus :  honorem 
tamen  huic  generi  non  fuisse  declarat  oratio  Catonis,  in  qua 
objecit,  ut  probrum,  Marco  Nobiliori,  quod  is  in  provinciam 
poetas  duxisset."^  But  if  in  these  songs  the  Roman  history 
was  embodied,  Cato  could  hardly  have  objected  to  them,  who 
was  fond  of  that  subject,  and  wrote  a  book  upon  it.  Nor 
does  his  account  of  them  convey  the  remotest  hint  that  they 
were  in  any  way  connected  with  history.  That  they  were 
lyrical  songs,  and  not  epic  rhapsodies,  appears  from  the  fact 
of  their  being  sung  to  the  flute ;  and  no  connected  history 
could  have  been  conveyed  in  snatches  of  songs  after  dinner. 

1  For  a  more  elaborate  refutation  the  reader  may  consult  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis, 
Credibility,  &c.   vol.   i.  ch.   6,  s.  5 ;  and  Schwegler,  Rom.    Gesch.    Band.  i. 

Buch  i.  §  23. 

2  Brutus,  19  ;  Tusc.  Q.  iv.  2.  3  Ap.  Non.  ii.  70,  assa  voce. 

4  "Camense,  musje,  quod  canunt  antiquorum  laudes."— Paul.  Diac.  p.  43, 
"Camense."  When  Niebuhr  adds  :  "and  among  these  also  of  kings,"  he  does 
not  state  on  what  authority  he  makes  that  addition.  It  is  not  in  Paullus. 
That  Ennius  sang  the  kings,  and  that  Lucretius  mentions  them  with  honour, 
are  no  proofs  that  they  were  celebrated  in  these  banqueting  songs. 


^  Tusc.  Q.  i.  2. 


r/2 


xcu 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCr:. 


Besides,  the  narrative  of  the  regal  period  is  for  the  most  part 
exceedingly  prosaic.  The  chief  exceptions  are  some  parts  of 
the  reign  of  Tarquinius  Superbus,  which  contain  materials 
that  might  be  adapted  to  a  poetical  subject,  just  like  the 
reign  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  and  several  other  modern 
sovereigns.  What,  for  instance,  could  prove  a  more  striking 
or  better  defined  rhapsody  in  a  national  epopee  than  the 
Hundred  Days,  Bonaparte's  escape  from  Elba,  his  landing 
in  France,  his  march  to  Paris,  his  final  struggle  and  over- 
throw, and  his  banishment  to  St.  Helena?  Yet  these  are 
facts  which  have  occurred  in  the  memory  of  the  present 
generation,  or,  at  least,  of  the  more  elderly  among  them. 
But  to  sing  the  reign  of  Tarquin  would  not  agree  w^ith  Cato's 
description,  which  was  to  sing  the  virtues  of  famous  men,  a 
description  which  unfortunately  at  once  banishes  from  these 
songs  a  great  part  of  history,  the  actors  in  which  are  fre- 
quently more  remarkable  for  their  vices  than  for  their  virtues. 
And  though  it  may  be  allowed  that  the  Piomans  had  a  few 
songs  concerning  historical  personages,  as  those  in  lionour  of 
Eomulus,  mentioned  by  Fabius  Pictor  as  still  sung  in  liis 
time,^  yet  these  would  be  very  for  from  making  a  history. 

iN'iebuhr  discovers  another  sort  of  historical  songs  in  the 
ncemce,  or  dirges,  sung  at  funerals.  But  the  Romans  could 
not  have  been  always  singing  funereal  dirges.  They  would 
not  have  formed  very  lively  entertainments  at  a  dinner-party, 
nor  can  we  imagine  any  other  occasion,  except  the  actual 
funeral,  on  which  people  would  have  assembled  for  the  plea- 
sure of  hearing  them.  The  preeficae  and  their  pipers  would 
have  to  be  hired,  and  the  whole  affair  would  have  been  a  sort 
of  profanation  of  a  sacred  rite.  These  naenise,  therefore,  how- 
ever great  the  individual  in  whose  honour  they  were  suno-, 
could  not  have  been  very  extensively  known  among  the 
people  at  large,  and  consequently  covild  not  have  formed  the 
basis  of  any  popular  history.  Mebuhr  thinks  he  discovers 
such  n^enise,  or  remnants  of  them,  in  the  inscriptions  found  in 
the  tombs  of  the  Scipios.  But,  even  allowing  this  to  be  so, 
when  they  began  to  be  engraved  they  ceased  to  be  only  songs, 

1  Dionvs.  i.  79. 


nikbuhk's  poetical  theory. 


XCllI 


and  might  take  their  place,  for  so  much  as  they  were  worth, 
among  written  funeral  orations,  busts  with  titles,  and  other 
family  records,  as  materials  for  history.  All  that  we  contend 
for  is  that,  in  the  shape  of  songs,  they  could  have  afforded 
no  such  materials. 

Besides  these  festive  and  these  funereal  songs,  Niebuhr 
tliinks  that  the  whole  history  of  the  kings  was  conveyed  in  a 
series  of  rhapsodies.^    The  reign  of  Pomulus  formed  of  itself  an 
epopee.     Numa  was  celebrated  only  in  short  songs.     Tullus, 
the  story  of  the  Horatii,  and  the  destruction  of  Alba,  formed 
an  epic  whole,  like  the  poem  of  Komulus  ;  nay,  we  have  even 
a  fragment  of   it  preserved  in  Livy,^  in  the  ^'  lex  horrendi 
carminis."     After  this,  however,  there  is  unfortunately  a  gap. 
'Jlie  reign  of  Ancus  has  not  the  slightest  poetical  colouring, 
aud  the  question  how  it  came  down  to  us  nnist  therefore 
remain,   according  to  this  hypothesis,  a  mystery.     But  the 
])oetry  begins  again  with  L.  Tarquinius  Priscus,  forming  a 
magnificent   epopee   which    terminates   with   the    battle    of 
Itegillus.     Its  parts  are,  the  arrival  of  Tarquin  at  Ptome,  his 
deeds  and   victories,  his   death,  the    supernatural  history  of 
Servius,  the  criminal  marriage  of  Tullia,  the  murder  of  the 
righteous  king,  the  whole  history  of  the  last  Tarquin,  the 
tokens  of  his  fall,  Lucretia,  the  disguise  of  Brutus,  his  death, 
the  war  of  Porsena,  and  lastly,  the  quite  Homeric  battle  of 
Pegillus.     These  formed  a  poem  which  hi  depth  and  brilliancy 
of  fancy  far  surpassed  anything  that  Rome  afterwards  pro- 
duced.    Deficient  in  the  unity  of  the  most  perfect  Grecian 
poem,  it  is  divided  into  sections,  which  correspond  with  the 
adventures  of  the  Niebelungenlied  ;  and  should  any  one,  says 
Niebuhr,  have  the  boldness  to  restore  this  poem,  he  would 
commit  a  great  error  if  he  chose  any  other  plan  than  this 
noble  form. 

On  this  we  may  remark,  that  for  the  existence  of  the 
banqueting  songs  and  the  nsenia?  before  spoken  of  there  is 
at  least  some  evidence  ;  but  where  shall  we  find  any  for  the 
existence  of  these  supposed  epopees  ?  To  use  a  slang  quasi- 
philosoi>hical  phrase   of  the   day,   Niebuhr   seems   to   have 

^  B.  i.  S.  272,  f.  2  Lib.  i.  26. 


XCIV 


INTEKNAL    EVIDENCE. 


developed  them  out  of  his  "  inner  consciousness."  The  only 
passage  which  he  adduces  in  support  of  his  view  is  the  fol- 
lowing one  from  Ennius  : — 

"  Scripsere  alii  rem 
Versibu',  qiios  olim  Faiini  Vatesque  caiiebaut 
Quom  neque  Musanini  scopulos  quisquam  siiperarat 
Nee  dicti  studiosus  erat." 

But  the  rem,  or  subject,  here  alluded  to  cannot  be  any  of 
these  ancient  epopees,  because  the  word  smpsere  can  refer  only 
to  some  written  poem,  and  indeed  a  passage  in  Cicero's  Brutus  ^ 
shows  that  Ennius  was  referring  to  the  poem  of  Nsevius  on 
the  First  Punic  War.  The  whole  value  of  the  passage,  there- 
fore, in  relation  to  Niebuhr's  view,  is  that  there  existed  long 
before  the  time  of  Ennius  verses  sung  by  Fauni  and  Vates — 
Fauns  and  poets,  or  prophets.  Now  these  surely  were  not 
epopees.  For  the  verses  of  the  Fauns,  as  we  learn  from 
Varro,  were  those  in  which  they  delivered  their  oracles  in 
woods  and  solitary  places  ;  and  they  were  in  the  rugged 
Saturnian  metre,  in  which  Naevius  had  composed  the  poem 
alluded  to.^  The  "annosa  volumina  vatum"  mentioned  by 
Horace,^  are  also  cited  by  Niebuhr  in  support  of  his  view,' 
though  with  the  admission  that  these  were  probably  prophe- 
tical books,  like  those  of  the  Marcii — an  admission  which  is 
doubtless  correct.  For  such  is  the  view  taken  by  Cicero  of 
what  Ennius  meant  by  the  word  vates,  as  appears  from  the 
following  passage  : — ''  Eodem  enim  modo  multa  a  vaticinan- 
tibus  spepe  preedicta  sunt  neque  solum  verbis,  sed  etiam 

*  Veisilm',  qiios  olim  Fauni  vatesque  canebant.' 

Shniliter  Marcius  et  Publicius  vates  cecinisse  dicimtur."*" 
Ennius  therefore  was  alluding  to  the  metrical  predictions  of 
iVIarcius  and  Publicius,  of  the  former  of  which  we  have  a 
specimen  in  Livy,^  and  not  to  any  historical  epopees. 

Moreover,  had  these  epic  poems  ever  e.xisted,  it  is  most 

1  Cap.  19,  75,  seq. 

■^  "  Fauni  dei  Latinorum,  ita  ut  Faunus  et  Fauna  sit  ;  hos  versibus,  quos 
rocant  Saturnios,  in  silvestribus  locis  traditum  est  solitos  fari  futura  a  quo 
fando  Faunos  dictos." — L.L.  vii.  36. 

3  Epp.  ii.  1,  26.  ^  B.  i.  S.  274,  Anm.  688. 

^  De  Div.  i.  50,  114,  scq.  *  Lib.  xxv.  12. 


•;fv 


if 

1    • 

V.i 


\'i 


ii 


mebuhr's  poetical  theory. 


xcv 


extraordinary  that  they  should  not  only  have  entirely  dis- 
appeared, but  that  not  even  a  hint  of  their  former  existence 
should  be  found  in  any  ancient  author.  Niebuhr  would 
fain  point  to  some  traces  of  them  in  the  "  lex  horrendi  car- 
minis,"  quoted  by  Livy  in  his  narrative  of  the  trial  of 
Uoratius ;  and  he  has  taken  tlie  liberty  of  altering  it  a  little, 
sub  silentio,  in  order  to  make  it  square  with  his  theory.  But 
carmen  is  a  common  expression  for  any  legal,  constitutional, 
or  religious  formula ;  ^  nor  can  the  substance  of  the  law,  even 
with  Niebuhr's  ad  lihitmn  emendation,  be  tortured  into  metre. 
Its  form,  though  perhaps  ratlier  more  antique,  very  much 
resembles  that  of  the  specimens  of  Roman  laws  given  by 
Cicero  in  the  third  book  of  his  Be  Legibus.  We  might  as 
well  contend  that  Liv}^'s  history  was  originally  written  in 
hexameters,  because  his  preface  opens  with  an  imperfect  one,^ 
as  infer  a  metrical  history  from  a  law  like  this.  The  assump- 
tion of  such  a  history  is  quite  at  variance  with  the  unpoetical 
nature  of  the  Eoman  mind,  and  especially  in  the  earlier  days 
of  Eome.  But  we  need  not  any  longer  detain  the  reader  with 
an  examination  of  this  theory.  It  was  partially  abandoned, 
or  at  all  events  very  extensively  modified,  by  Niebuhr  himself, 
at  the  beginning  of  his  second  volume,  and  we  believe  that 
it  is  now  pretty  universally  rejected  by  scholars. 

Some  authors  are  of  opinion  that  the  early  Eoman  history, 
or  at  all  events  the  best  materials  for  it,  is  a  direct  and  bare- 
faced forgery.  Thus  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  remarks  :  ^  "  It  has  been 
already  mentioned  that  Clodius,  the  author  of  a  work  on 
Itoman  chronology,  described  the  early  records  as  having 
perished  in  the  Gallic  conflagration,  and  as  having  been  after- 
wards replaced  by  registers  fabricated  with  the  view  of  doing 
honour  to  particular  persons.  We  have  likewise  cited  Cicero's 
account  of  the  early  eclipses  having  been  calculated  back 
from  a  certain  solar  eclipse  recorded  in  the  Annales  Maximi. 
These  testimonies  lead  to  the  inference  that,  after  the  early 
annals  had  been  destroyed,  or  when  a  demand  arose  for  annals 

1  See  the  authorities  collected  by  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  vol.  i.  p.  224,  note  126. 
^  "  Facturusne  opcne  prctium  sim,"  &c. 
*  Criidibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  165,  scq. 


XCVl 


l^^TEli^AL   EVIDE^'CE. 


.» 


^vllicb  never  had  existed,  forgeries  were  executed,  by  whicli 
a  record  of  this  kind  for  the  early  period  of  Home  was 
supplied." 

"  Ecce  iterum  Crispinus  !"  This  Clodius  is  too  valuable  a 
witness  to  let  drop,  though  nobody  knows  who  he  is,  and 
though  the  only  voucher,  even  for  his  existence,  is  such  a 
writer  as  Plutarcli.  But  it  is  evident,  even  from  the  testi- 
mony of  Clodius  himself,  that  tiiere  had  once  been  annals,  or 
how  could  they  be  said  to  have  been  destroyed  ?  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis  has  two  strings  to  his  bow,  for  fear  that  one  should 
break  ;  but  it  only  makes  his  weapon  the  weaker.  For  if  there 
were  no  annals,  as  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  in  another  place  has 
attempted  to  show%  from  the  passage  in  Cicero  about  eclipses, 
which  we  have  already  examined,^  then  the  inference  from 
Clodius  that  they  were  replaced  by  fabricated  ones  is  absurd  ; 
aud  if  tiiere  were  annals,  then  the  inference  from  Cicero  that 
they  did  not  exist  is  good  for  nothing.  It  is  evident  that 
either  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  witnesses  must  be  dis- 
carded ;  either  Clodius,  who  says  that  annals  once  existed, 
were  destroyed,  and  replaced  by  forged  ones,  or  Cicero,  who, 
by  inference  and  construction,  is  supposed  to  say  that  they 
never  existed  at  all.  But  we  have  shown  before  that  the 
passage  in  Cicero  will  admit  of  no  such  interpretation. 

We  will  assume,  however,  for  a  moment,  even  for  the  sake 
of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  hypothesis,  that  '^arly  annals  had  existed 
and  been  destroyed  ;  at  what  period  could  it  have  been  that 
a  demand  arose  for  them,  which  w^as  supplied  by  means  of 
forgery  ?  and  who  could  have  been  the  forgers  ? 

It  is  plain  that  a  demand  for  annals  must  have  existed 
from  the  very  first  day  that  a  line  of  them  was  written,  or 
why  should  they  have  been  kept  at  all  ?  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis, 
however,  appears  to  think  that  nobody  cared  anything  about 
them,  till  certain  persons  took  it  into  their  heads  to  write 
a  Ii(mian  history  for  the  public ;  and  as  they  wanted  materials 
for  the  earlier  part,  they  must  have  applied  to  the  Pontifex 
Maximus,  and  that  personage,  not  having  any  Annates  earlier 
than  the  Gallic  conflagration,  very  obligingly  supplied  them 

^  Above,  p.  xxxvii.  >///. 


*     Ml 


Sill    G.    C.    LEWIS  S   T1IE3KY    OF    FORGERY. 


XCVll 


:m 


with  a  forged  set !  For  it  is  evident  that  no  private  indi- 
vidual could  have  forged  them,  since,  first,  there  would  have 
been  no  demand  for  such  things — that  is,  in  the  sense  meant 
by  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis — before  the  commencement  of  historical 
writing  for  the  public  ;  and,  secondly,  Fabius  Pictor,  Cencius 
Alimentus,  Cato,  and  others,  must  have  been  very  foolish 
persons,  to  say  no  worse,  if,  knowing  that  the  IVmtifex 
Maximus  was  the  only  person  privileged  to  keep  such  annals, 
they  had  accepted  any  from  a  private  individual. 

It  might  be  said  that  the  early  history,  as  recorded  by  the 
first  writers,  was  a  forgery  of  a  different  kind ;  that  it  was 
not  founded  on  any  documents  or  records  at  all,  but  was,  for 
the  most  part  at  least,  a  pure  literary  invention.  But  such  a 
supposition  is  at  once  overthrown  by  considering  the  essential 
agreement  in  the  narratives  of  the  earliest  writers.  It  is 
impossible  that  several  authors,  writing  independently,  should 
have  adopted  almost  exactly  the  same  tale,  even  if  we  could 
imagine  that  a  grave  author  like  Cato,  for  instance,  should 
have  lent  himself  to  such  a  thing.  Nor  does  the  character 
of  tlie  history  bear  the  appearance  of  invention.  Much  of  it 
is  dry  detail,  which  even  the  most  impudent  forger  of  a  highly 
literary  age  would  not  have  had  the  hardihood  to  invent. 
Any  motive  for  such  a  forgery  could  only  have  been  the  gain 
expected  from  it.  But  it  is  im]3ossible  to  attribute  such  a 
motive  to  the  first  lioman  annalists,  who  were  men  of  dis- 
tincti(jn,  and  not  needy  and  venal  litttratcurs,  seeking  a  living 
by  their  pen. 

Another  hypothesis  is,  that  the  early  Poman  history  was 
entirely  derived  from  Greek  writers.  This  view  has  been 
adopted  by  A.  W.  Sclilegel,^  and  other  German  critics  ;  but, 
with  all  our  respect  for  Schlegel's  critical  talents,  we  must 
avow  our  entire  disbelief  in  his  theory.  According  to  him, 
the  early  Roman  history  is  nothing  but  a  "  Greek  romance," 
derived  by  the  barbarous  liomans  from  Greek  writers,  when, 
aft^r  the  war  with  Pyrrhus,  they  came  to  be  better  acquainted 
with  that  nation.     But  the  early  Roman  history,  even  that  of 

1  Wcrke,  B.  xii.  S.  447,  seq.,  486,  scqq.  ;  cf.  Daliliiiaiin,  Forschuiigeii  uiif 
a.in  Gfbict.'dci-  Go«cli.  ii.  1,  S.  Vl\\  f. 


"^A 


XCVlll 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


SCHWEGLERS    J:TIULUG1CAE    THKUKY. 


XCIX 


the  kings,  contains  many  details  concerning  constitutional, 
legal,  consuetudinaiy,  and  topographical  points,  which  could 
not  possibly  have  proceeded  from  any  but  a  native  pen.  We 
mean  not,  however,  to  deny  that  some  particulars  may  have 
been  supplied  by  Greek  writers,  and  especially,  as  we  have 
already  observed,  by  Tim^us.  But  whatever  in  Timseus,  or 
in  any  other  Greek  writer,  w^ould  have  approved  itself  to  a 
Roman  understanding,  must  have  been  derived,  immediately 
or  remotely,  from  a  Eomaii  source.  Schlegel's  idea  that  the 
Eomans  could  have  been  indebted  for  any  part  of  their  history 
to  the  needy  Greeks  who  flocked  to  Eome  about  the  age  of 
Augustus,  is  altogether  preposterous. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  examine  Schwegler's  view^  of  the 
origin  of  the  early  history.  It  is  constructed  wdth  much 
plausibility,  and  as  it  has  to  a  considerable  extent  been 
adopted  by  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  we  will  give  it  at  length  in  a 

translation  •} — 

"  The  true  and  genuine  tradition  of  the  foundation  of  Eome, 
and  of  its  earliest  fortunes,— if  indeed  such  a  tradition  ever 

existed, appears  to  have  been  soon  lost.     And  this   could 

scarcely  be  otherwise.     Being  neither  secured  against  destruc- 
tion or  falsification  by  being  committed  to  writing,  norliaving 
become  the  subject  of  popular  poetry,  and  thus  obtained  a 
firm  traditional  form  at  least  in  song,  it  must,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  have  become  mute  and  been  extinguished  in  the 
course  of  generations.     It  is  very  possible,  nay  probable,  that 
in  the  time  of  the  Decemvirs  the  Eomans  no  longer  knew 
anything  certain  respecting  the  origin  of  their  city.     But  in 
this  ignorance  they  did  not  acquiesce.     It  was  felt  necessary 
to  say  something  more  definite  respecting  a  period  and  events 
of  which  no  historical  knowledge  existed  ;  and  therefore,  on  a 
foundation  of  obscure  remembrances  and  unconnected  legends 
which  had  been  preserved,  a  history  was  subtly  constructed 
from    proper  names,   monuments,   institutions,  and   usages, 
wdierewith  to  fill  up  the  gap  of  tradition.     In  this  process, 
conscious  deceit  and  designed  falsification  are  not  for  an  in- 
stant to  be  imputed  ;  on  the  contrary,  a  iiill  persuasion  was 

'^  See  Rom.  Gcsch.  Biicli  i.  ^  2ti. 


entertained  that  in  these  narratives  the  real  course  of  events 
had  been  felicitously  divined,  and  the  original  history  recon- 
structed. It  is  of  course  to  be  understood  that  a  history 
devised  in  such  a  manner  w^as  not  at  first  a  connected  wdiole, 
such  as  is  presented  to  us  in  the  w^orks  on  Eoman  history. 
This  whole,— in  which  the  legend  of  /Eneas'  settlement  is 
brought  into  pragmatical  connexion  wdth  the  foundation  and 
history  of  Alba  Longa,  and  the  line  of  the  Alban  kings  with 
the  foundation  of  Eome,  so  that  the  story,  from  the  landing 
of  Ancus  to  the  overthrow  of  the  younger  Tarquin,  is  strung 
together  by  the  thread  of  a  continuous,  unbroken  historical 
narrative, — this  systematic  whole  was  of  course  first  deve- 
loped by  a  knitting  of  it  together,  and  a  common  working 
at  it,  and  partly  also,  no  doubt,  by  literary  industry  and 
reflection. 

"  If  we  resolve  this  history  into  its  component  parts,  and 
examine  each  separate  part  by  itself,  with  regard  to  its  origin 
and  genetic  motives,  it  appears  that  the  Eoman  legends  and 
traditions  are  of  very  different  grow^th,  and  require  very 
different  explanations. 

"  And  first  of  all  it  must  be  recognised  that  certain  funda- 
mental things  in  the  traditional  history  of  the  kings  are 
historical,  and  derived  from  historical  memory.  Some  remem- 
brance, though  a  very  confused  one,  of  the  principal  points  in 
the  development  of  the  Eoman  constitution  was  preserved  till 
the  literary  times.  Hence  we  cannot  withhold  from  the 
constitutional  traditions  a  certain  degree  of  credibility.  The 
united  kingdom  of  the  Eomans  and  Sabines  ;  the  three  stem- 
tribes,  and  their  successive  origin;  the  three  centuries  of 
knights;  the  successive  augmentation  of  the  Senate  till  it 
reached  the  number  of  three  hundred;  the  addition  of  a 
plebs  ;  the  creation  of  the  gentes  minores ;  the  introduction 
of  the  census ;  the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy  and  the  founda- 
tion of  a  republic — these  fundamental  points  of  the  oldest 
constitutional  history  are  in  all  probability  essentially  his- 
torical ;  although  the  details,  and  especially  the  numerical 
ones,  with  which  they  are  related,  as  well  as  the  causal 
connexion  in  which  they  are  placed  by  the  historians  mav 


M 


c 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


SCII\VI':<Jl.El:  S    yETloLoaiCVL   TITKOllY 


CI 


nevertheless  be  invented  or  formed  by  construction.  But 
over  this  foundation  of  facts  a  rank  and  luxuriant  growth 
of  invention  has  entwined  itself;  a  growth  of  legends  which 
we  must  now  more  closely  exuaiine,  and  lay  them  bare  in 

their  germs. 

"  A  distinction  has  in  general  been  rightly  drawn  between 
myth  and  legend.  Legend  is  the  memory  of  remarkable 
occurrences  propagated  from  generation  to  generation  in  the 
mouth  of  the  people,  particularly  in  national  songs,  and 
decked  out  by  the  imagination,  more  or  less  arbitrarily,  but 
without  any  conscious  design,  so  as  to  become  wonderful. 
A  myth  is  exactly  the  opposite  of  a  legend.  If  the  kernel 
of  a  legend  is  some  historical  fact,  only  adorned  by  the 
inventions  added  to  it,  and  thus  quantitatively  exaggerated,  so 
on  the  contrary  some  definite  idea  is  the  kernel  and  genetic 
motive  of  the  myth,  and  the  a<itual  occurrence  only  the 
stuff,  or  means,  which  the  poet  uses  in  order  to  bring  the 
idea  into  view^  and  contemplation. 

"  If  we  apply  this  view  to  early  Eoman  history,  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  it  contains  both  legends  and  mytlis,  in  the 
strict  sense  of  them  just  laid  down.     To  give  some  examples  : 
the  heroic  deeds  of  an  Horatius  Codes,  a  Mucins  Scievola, 
a  Clcelia,  may  pass  f(jr  legends ;  Brutus  is  a  legendary  figure  ; 
the  battle  of  Lake  Eegillus  is  depicted  in  a  legendary  manner  ; 
and  in  like  manner  the  victorious  career  of  Coriolanus ;  the 
destruction  of  the  three  hundred  Fabii ;    the  expedition  of 
Cincinnatus  to  the  Algidus.     On  the  other*  hand  the  pro- 
creation of  Servius  Tullius  by  the  Lar  of  the  palace  is  a 
specimen  of  a  myth  ;  in  which  is  expressed  the  idea  that 
the  innermost  spirit  of  the  lloman  monarchy   became   in- 
carnate in  this  king.     Further,  the  contest  of  Hercules  (that 
is,  of  the  heavenly  god  Sancus)  with  Cacus,  breathing  smoke 
and  fire,  is  a  pure  myth,  proceeding  from  an  ancient  sym- 
bolism of  nature.      Again,  the   reference    of  the   disparate 
elements  of  the  Koman  national  mind  in  which  political  and 
warlike  capacity  were  so  remarkably  blended  with  religious 
veneration,  to  the  disparate  personifications  of  two  original 
founders,  of  whom  one,  a  warlike  prince,  regulates  the  civil 


and  military  affairs  of  tlie  State,  the  other  a  prince  of  peace, 
those  of  religion  and  divine  worship,  is  an  historical  myth. 

"The  greater  part  of  the  Roman  traditions,  however,  fall 
neither  under  the  definition  of  legend  nor  under  that  of  pure 
ideal  myth :  they  are  rather,  to  use  such  an  ex]U'ession,  ietio- 
logical  myths  :  that  is,  tliey  relate  events  and  occurrences 
which  have  been  imagined  nv  subtly  im^ented  in  order  to 
explain  genetically  some  given  fact,  or  the  name  of  a  custom, 
usage,  worship,  institution,  place,  monument,  sanctuary,  tc. 
The  ^etiological  myth  is  a  peculiar  subordinate  sort  of  myth. 
It  is  a  myth  in  so  far  as  the  actual  event  in  the  narrative 
of  which  it  consists  is  a  freely  imagined  one  ;  but  it  differs 
from  the  true  myth  insomuch  as  its  motive,  and  the  point 
whence  it  proceeds,  is  not  an  idea,  or  an  ideal  contemplation, 
but  one  empirically  given,  which  through  this  narration  is 
explained  and  referred  to  fundamental  causes.  The  etio- 
logical myths  are  the  oldest  and  indeed  for  the  most  part 
childish  attempts  at  historical  hypotheses.  The  early  Eoman 
history  is  rich  in  such  a?tiological  myths.  The  settlement  of 
Evander,  the  presence  of  Hercules  in  Eome,  the  story  of  the 
l^Jtitii  and  Pinarii,  the  taking  possession  and  saving  of  the 
I'alladium  by  the  Xantii,  the  sow  with  the  thirty  pigs,  the 
rape  of  the  Sabines,  the  beautiful  bride  of  Talassius,  the  fable 
of  Tarpeia,  the  founding  of  the  Temple  of  Jupiter  Stator,  the 
traditions  respecting  the  origin  of  the  name  of  the  Lacus 
Curtius,  the  miraculous  deed  of  Attus  Navius,  and  otlier 
traditions  of  this  sort,  may  serve  as  exam})les  of  them,  and 
will  be  explained  from  this  point  of  view  in  the  course  of 
the  following  disquisition.  Plutarch's  'Eoman  Questions' 
contain  a  rich  and  instructive  collection  of  such  2etiolo^>ical 
myths. 

''  The  etymological  myth  is  a  subordinate  kind  of  the 
{TDtiological,  which  takes  as  its  point  of  departure  some  given 
proper  name,  and  seeks  to  explain  its  origin  by  suggesting 
for  it  some  actual  event.  The  early  Eoman  history  is  also 
very  rich  in  myths  of  this  sort ;  a  heap  of  the  fables  which 
it  contains  has  been  spun  out  of  proper  names.  Such  is  the 
fable  of  Argos,  the  guest  of  Evander  (whence  the  name  of 


ell 


INTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


Argiletum,  Sew.  ^:ii.  viii.  rUo),  and  the  Argive  colony  at 
Rome  ;  the  birth  of  Silvius  Posthiimus  in  the  wood ;  the 
relation  of  Evander,  the  good  man,  to  Cacns,  the  bad  man ; 
the  suckling  of  Komulus ;  the  relation  of  the  sucklings  to  the 
ruminal  fig-tree ;  the  reputed  origin  of  the  Fossa  Cluilia  ; 
the  extraction  of  the  Tarquins  from  Tarquinii ;  the  discovery 
of  the  head  of  Olus  ;  the  birth  of  Servius  Tullius  from  a  slave  ; 
the  building  of  the  Tullianum  by  the  like-named  king  ;  the 
idiocy  of  Brutus  ;  Scsevola's  burnt  right  hand ;  the  conquest 
of  Corioli  by  Coriolanus,  &c. 

"There  is  still  another   sort   of  Roman  tradition,   to   be 
distinguished  from  the  setiological  and  etymological  myths ; 
such  traditions  as  may  be  described  as  mythical  clothings 
of  actual  relations  and  events,  which  thus  occupy  a  middle 
place  between  myth  and  legend.     To  this  head  belongs,  for 
example,  the  legend  of  the  Sibyl  who  comes  to  Rome  in  the 
reign  of  the  younger  Tarquin,  offers  this  king  nine  books  of 
divine    prophecies  at  a  high  price,  being  ridiculed  by  him 
burns  three  of  them,  and  then  another  three,  before  his  eyes, 
and  lastly  sells  to  the  king  the  three  still  left  at  the  price 
originally  demanded  for  the  nine.     An  actual  occurrence  lies 
doubtless  at  the  bottom  of  this  legend ;   the  fact  that  the 
Sibylline  prophecies  were  probably  brought  to  Rome  from 
Cumse  in  the  reign  of  the  second  Tarquin ;  but  the  clothing 
of  this  fact  is  invention,  a  mean  between  legend  and  myth. 
Perhaps  it  is  the  same  with  the  making  of  the  Roman  kings 
seven  in  number;    these  seven   kings   represent  the  seven 
fundamental  facts  of  the  older  (pre-republican)    history   of 
Rome  which  remained  in  historical  remembrance. 

"In  f^eneral  the  Roman  myths  have  the  peculiar  and 
characteristic  property,  that  as  a  rule  they  are  not  unlicensed 
invention,  nor  creations  of  the  fancy  ;  and  particularly,  not 
like  the  greater  part  of  the  narratives  of  the  Greek  mythology, 
myth  from  natural  philosophy,  or  resting  on  a  symbolism  of 
nature,  but  that  they  are  historical  myths,  that  a  certain 
aspect  of  actual  relationships  and  real  events  lies  at  the 
bottom  of  them.  The  figures  of  Romulus  and  Tatius,  for 
example,  are  indeed  mythical :    they  never  really  existed ; 


SCHWEdLKJlS   /KTIOI.OOICAL   THEORY. 


cm 


but  their  reputed  double  rule  contains  nevertheless  historical 
truth  :  it  is  the  mythical  expression  of  a  real  historical 
relationship,  of  tlie  united  Latino-Sabine  twofold  state.  Tlie 
contest  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  with  the  augur  Attus  Xavius 
is  to  be  similarly  judged:  it  is  scarcely  historical  in  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  related :  at  all  events,  the  story  of  the 
whetstone  is  an  evident  fable:  nevertheless  a  real  event  is 
mirrored  in  it ;  the  historical  conflict  of  the  pre-Tarquinian 
sacerdotal  state  with  the  political  ideas  of  the  Tarquin ian 
dynasty.  In  most  of  the  legends  and  myths  of  the  ancient 
Roman  history,  historical  remembrances  and  appearances 
constitute  in  like  manner  the  foundation ;  they  may  be 
detached  from  it  if  one  refers  each  myth  to  the  general 
fundamental  representation  which  forms  its  genetic  motive. 

"  It  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to  justify  this  conception  of 
the  early  Roman  history,  and  es])ecially  the  idea  of  the  myth, 
against  such  objections  as  liave  been  recently  brought  against 
it,  in  which  the  '  levity  '  and  the  '  vain  and  idle  play  of 
thoughts,'  of  such  mythic  creations  have  been  found  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  moral  earnestness  and  the  practical  turn  of 
mind  of  the  ancient  Romans.  This  objection  would  then 
only  hit  the  mark  if  the  myths  were  arbitrary  and  conscious 
inventions, — if,  in  short,  they  were  wilful  lies.  They  are,  how- 
ever, so  little  such,  that  they  are  rather  the  only  language  in 
which  a  people  in  a  certain  grade  of  civilization  can  express 
its  thoughts  and  ideas.  Thus,  for  example,  the  Latin  language, 
at  that  point  of  civilization  wliich  the  Romans  had  attained 
at  the  time  when  such  myths  were  invented,  was  unable  to 
express  exhaustively  the  historical  conflict  between  the  pre- 
Tarquinian  and  Tarquinian  idea  of  a  state;  wherefore  the 
conception  was  aided  by  symbolizing  and  bringing  into  view 
in  a  single  significant  scene  this  contest  and  the  general 
events  connected  with  it :  a  scene  which,  empirically  taken, 
is  at  all  events  unhistorical,  but  in  its  foundation  is  histori- 
cally true.  Let  us  figure  to  ourselves  a  people,  which,  having 
reached  a  certain  stage  of  culture,  feels  the  want  of  brinf^ino- 
under  its  contemplation  its  primitive  existence,  of  sketchhig 
for  itself  a  picture  of  its  original  condition,  of  which  it  has 


CIV 


INTERNAL    EVIDENCK. 


no  longer  any  liistorical  knowledge,  of  tracing  the  causes  of 
its  present  institutions  and  circumstances,  of  its  political  and 
sacerdotal  traditions  :  liow  will  it  be  able  to  satisfy  this  want 
in  any  other  way  than  by  the  invention  of  myths  ?  What 
out  of  its  present  consciousness  it  expresses  about  its  origin 
it  w411  be  obliged — so  long  as  it  is  not  yet  intellectually  ripe 
enough  to  give  these  expressions  in  the  form  of  historical 
hypotheses — to  express  in  the  form  of  images,  that  is,  in 

mythic  language. 

"  In  what  precedes  ^Ye  have  laid  down  the  various  motives 
and  modes  of  origin  of  the  Eoman  legends  and  traditions. 
The  legends  which  arose  in  this  manner  were  then  further 
spun  out  by  intelligent  reflection,  and  connected  with  one 
another ;  and  thus  by  degrees  arose  that  complete  whole  of 
Eoman  tradition  which  the  Eoman  historians  found  and 
noted  down.  The  legend  of  Silvius  Posthunuis,  the  ancestor 
of  the  Alban  Silvii,  may  serve  as  an  example  of  such  myth- 
spinning.  Silvius,  it  is  said,  obtained  that  name  because  he 
was  born  in  a  wood— evidently  an  etymological  myth.  Thus 
— it  was  further  inferred — his  mother  Lavinia  must  have 
sojourned  in  the  w^ood  at  the  time  of  his  birth :  she  had 
therefore  doubtless  fled  thither;  hence  probably  after  the 
death  of  her  husband  ^neas  ;  thus  probably  for  fear  of  her 
step-son  Ascanius.  That  all  these  accounts  rest  not  on  real 
tradition,  but  on  pure  invention,  is  manifest.  In  like  manner 
the  reputed  origin  of  the  Eoman  population  from  a  runaway 
rabble,  and  the  account  that  it  was  on  this  ground  that 
the  envoys  of  Eomulus,  who  proposed  connubium  to  the 
neighbouring  peoples,  were  repulsed  with  contemptuous  words, 
were  certainly  only  inferred  from  the  purely  mythical  narra- 
tive of  the  rape  of  the  Sabines.  The  reputed  despotism 
exercised  by  Eomulus  in  tlie  later  years  of  his  reign,  and 
the  body-guard  with  which  he  surrounded  himself,  are  nothing 
but  inferences  drawn  from  the  legend  of  his  dismemberment 
(which  was  also  mythical  in  its  origin)  in  order  to  explain  by 
them  that  enigmatical  act. 

"  It  is  of  course  understood  that  every  single  trait  of  the 
traditionaiy   history  cannot  any  longer   be  elucidated ;   but 


THE   ETIOLOGICAL   TIIEOliV. 


CV 


the  wliole   manner  of  its  coming  into  existence  will  liave 
become  hy  these  preliminary  remarks  sufficiently  clear." 

Tliis  hypotliesis  is,  at  all  events,  more  plausible  than  the 
preceding  ones;  yet  we  do  not  think  tliat  it  is  a  whit 
more  true. 

We  may  observe  at  the  outset  that  it  is  a  mere  guess  or  i 
conjecture,  unsupported  by  a  single  scrap  of  authority.  We  ' 
may  further  remark  that  it  is  needlessly  invented ;  for,  as  we 
have  already  shown,  there  were  other  methods,  the  existence 
of  which  rests  on  the  best  ancient  testimony,  by  which  the 
lioman  history  may  have  come  down  to  us,— namely,  through 
the  Annales  IMaximi,  the  Commentaries  of  the  Pontifices,  &c. 
Tlie  hypotliesis  of  Schwegler,  therefore,  is  not  only  a  guess, 
but  a  superfluous  one. 

Schwegler's    motive    for   choosing   the    dccemviral    period 
as  that  in  which  he  thought  the  history  first  began  to  be 
constructed  is  plain  enough.     The  use  of  writing^'could  no 
longer  be  denied,  because  the  laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables  were 
incontestably  written  laws.     But,  as  we  have   seen,  letters 
were  known  long  previously ;  and  if  they  had  been  first  intro- 
duced  at  this  late  period,  some  record  of  their  introduction 
could   hardly   have    been  wanting.      It   does  not,  however, 
appear  very  clearly  whether   Schwegler  supposes   that   the 
history  thus  invented  was  now  first  written  down,  or  that  it 
was  merely  constructed  orally,  and  transmitted  in  the  same 
manner.     But  to  both  these  assumptions  there  are  insuper- 
able  objections.     For  if  history  now   began  to  be  written, 
then— excluding  always  the  Commentarii  Pontificum,  which 
Schwegler  does  not  appear  to  contemplate— Fabius   Pictor 
and  Cincius  Alimentus  were  not,  as   they  are   universally 
allowed  to  have  been,  the  first  annalists  ;  and  if  it  was  not 
written,  then  it  is  quite  impossible   that   such   a   body  of 
history,  containing  many  minute  details,    could    have   been 
handed  down  orally. 

We  may  next  remark  that,  if  the  theory  were  tenable,  it 
would  still  provide  us  with  a  good  deal  of  credible  histoiy  of 
the  regal  period.  For  the  decemvirs  were  appointed  only 
about  half  a  century  after  the  expulsion  of  tlie  kings ;  and 

h 


CVl 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


oral  tradition,  it  is  commonly  allowed,  may  be  relied  on  for 
a  century,  and  even  a  good  deal  more,  when  connected  with 
and  supported  by  usages,  laws,  monuments,  &c.  Especially 
a  full  and  authentic  account  might  be  supposed  to  have  come 
down  of  the  last  Tarquin,  whose  history  must  have  been  in 
the  memory  of  many  men  still  living.  Yet  of  all  the  kings, 
at  all  events  after  Xuma,  the  reign  of  the  last  Tarquin  is 
precisely  the  one  wdiicli  is  said  to  bear  the  most  traces  of 
falsehood  and  poetical  invention. 

Schwegler  indeed  acknowledges  that  certain  fundamental 
points  of  the  regal  period  may  be  considered  as  historical ; 
and  especially  a  certain  degree  of  credibility  is  not  to  be 
refused  to  constitutional  traditions.  Among  such  historical 
things  he  classes  the  united  state  of  the  Eomans  and  Sabines, 
the  three  original  tribes,  the  three  centuries  of  knights,  the 
introduction  of  the  census,  the  fall  of  the  kings,  &c.  In 
short,  he  allows  the  main  facts  of  the  history,  but  not  the 
manner  in  wdiich  they  are  related  to  have  come  to  pass  • 
though  the  facts  and  the  method  of  their  accomplishment 
rest  on  precisely  the  same  testimony.  But  round  these  facts, 
it  is  asserted,  had  entwined  itself  a  rank  growth  of  inventions 
and  falsehoods,  the  origin  of  which  he  proceeds  to  discuss  ; 
and  he  divides  them  into  legends  and  myths. 

Now  w^e  do  not  mean  to  assert  that  the  Eoman  history  is 
altogether  free  from  fiction.  If  the  exaggeration  of  some 
actual  occurrence  constitutes  a  legend,  then  no  doubt  legends 
are  to  be  found  in  it,  as  they  are  in  the  early  history  of  most 
nations.  The  progress  of  a  story  in  passing  from  mouth  to 
mouth  is  proverbial ;  nor  do  we  contend  that  the  Romans 
were  free  from  a  natural,  we  might  almost  say  an  inevitable, 
failing.  All  we  contend  for  is  that  these  exaggerations  do 
not  invalidate  the  main  outlines,  the  grand  features,  of  the 
history.  On  the  other  hand,  we  altogether  doubt  whether  it 
contains  myths  that  come  under  Schwegler's  definition ; 
namely,  narratives  of  occurrences  invented  merely  to  typify 
some  abstract  idea.  We  agree  with  the  objectors  alluded  to 
by  Schwegler,  that  such  inventions  are  entirely  foreign  to 
the   Roman  turn  of  mind.     The  example  proposed  in  the 


THE   .ETIOLOGICAL   THEORY. 


evil 


story  of  Attus  Navius  ls  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 
The  invention  of  a  symbolical  story  of  that  nature  would 
imply  a  far  higlier  degree  of  intellectual  refinement  and 
subtlety  than  the  capacity  to  understand,  and,  consequentl}^ 
to  express — for  if  it  could  not  be  expressed  it  could  not  be 
understood — the  diffei'ence  between  two  forms  of  government. 
Indeed,  a  political  myth  appears  to  us  altogether  an  absurdity. 
Schw^egler  is  obliged  to  confess  that  it  can  be  found  only 
among  the  Romans,  and  that  oxen  with  them  there  is  some 
true  historical  fact  at  the  bottom  of  it.  If  it  be  accom- 
panied with  preternatural  incidents — as,  for  instance,  the 
cutting  of  the  whetstone  by  Attus  Navius — which  give  it  a 
mythic  colouring ;  this  circumstance  admits  of  an  easy 
explanation.  We  shall  discuss  this  point  jjresently,  when 
we  come  to  consider  the  objections  wdiich  have  been  brought 
against  the  history  on  the  ground  of  the  supernatural  events 
which  it  contains.  Every  supernatural  appearance,  or  sup- 
posed appearance,  is  not  necessarily  connected  with  a  myth. 
Thus,  for  instance,  the  story  of  the  phallus  seen  in  the  fire, 
to  which  was  attributed  the  generation  of  Servius  Tullius, 
may  have  been  the  result  of  fancy,  or  superstition,  or  many 
other  causes.  It  is  an  extremely  far-fetched  and  improbable 
supposition,  that  it  was  invented  in  order  to  express  the  idea 
that  the  spirit  of  the  Roman  monarchy  became  incarnate  in 
Servius;  perhaps,  of  all  the  Roman  kings,  the  one  least  fitted 
to  be  a  type  of  the  monarchy. 

Schwegler  admits  that  the  greater  part  of  the  traditional 
historv  of  Rome  cannot  be  brought  under  the  definition 
either  of  pure  myth  or  even  of  legend  ;  and  he  has  therefore 
discovered  for  them  an  origin  in  what  he  calls  the  ^etiological 
myth.  The  aetiological  myth  is  a  story  subtly  invented  in 
order  to  account  for  the  existence  of  certain  usages,  worships, 
institutions,  monuments,  &c.  Now  we  will  not  deny  that 
some  inventions  of  this  kind  are  to  be  found  in  the  early 
Roman  history,  and  especially  in  that  portion  of  it  which  is 
prior  to  the  foundation  of  the  city ;  and  it  is  to  this  period 
that  the  instances  cited  by  Schwegler  chiefly  belong.  It  w^as 
a   common    practice  among   the   ancients  to   magnify  their 

A  2 


CVlll 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


origin  and  their  primneval  history.  "  Datur  hrec  venia  anti- 
quitati,  ut,  miscendo  humana  divinis,  primordia  nrbimii 
augustiora  faciat,"  says  Livy  in  his  Preface.  But  we  do  not 
believe  that  any  {^etiological  myths  of  this  description  are  to 
be  found  after  the  foundation  of  the  city,  or  at  all  events 
after  the  reign  of  Numa.  AVe  may  further  remark  that  the 
^etiological  myth  cannot  have  been  altogether  baseless.  For 
if  usages,  worsliips,  &c.  liad  come  down  to  be  explained,  they 
must  have  formerly  existed.  It  is  true,  however,  that  in  the 
narrative  they  may  have  been  altered  and  exaggerated ;  and 
thus  a  settlement  of  Arcadians  may  have  been  attributed  to 
Evander,  of  Argives  to  Hercules,  and  so  forth. 

Perhaps  the  most  plausible  part  of  Schwegler's  theory  is 
that  of  the  etymological  myth,  a  subordinate  kind  of  ietio- 
logical  myth,  invented  to  explain  the  origin  of  proper  names. 
This  part  of  the  theory  has  been  very  extensively  adopted  by 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis.  But  it  is  a  purely  arbitrary  conjecture.  If 
the  principle  is  good  for  anything,  it  may  be  carried  a  great 
deal  further  than  the  author  has  carried  it,  and  quite  into 
the  historical  times.  If  it  be  asserted  that  the  conquest  of 
Corioli  was  invented  to  explain  the  name  of  Coriolanus,  the 
story  of  Mucins  burning  his  left  hand  to  explain  the  name  of 
Scc^evola,  the  account  of  Junius's  idiocy  to  explain  the  name 
of  Brutus,  &c.,  then  on  the  same  grounds  we  may  affirm  that 
the  conquest  of  Africa  was  imagined  to  explain  Scipio's  name 
of  Africanus,  the  wisdom  of  M.  Porcius  to  explain  the  name 
of  Cato,  &c.  In  fact  the  theory  amounts  to  this,  that  no 
person  can  ever  be  named  after  a  place,  nor  after  some 
peculiarity;  whereas  nothing  can  be  more  natural  and 
common  than  the  imposition  of  such  names.  The  greater 
part  of  our  English  surnames  have  no  other  origin ;  as  John 
Carpenter,  James  Butcher,  William  Colchester,  William 
Ilufus,  John  Lackland,  &c.  So  also  it  might  be  said  that  the 
story  of  a  Danish  settlement  was  invented  to  account  for  the 
names  of  St.  Olave's,  St.  Clement  Danes,  &c. 

Further,  Schweglei;  neglects  to  observe  that  tradition  has 

handed  down  many  things  that  are  not  necessarily  connected 

I  with  any  proper  name,  usage,  institution,  &c.,  and  the  origin 


"t"  .t. 


'^ 


E?- 


I**  ■ 


s-y- 


THE   ^ETIOLOGICAL   THEORY.  cix 

of  which  cannot  be  explained  by  any  ^etiological  myth 
Thus  the  religious  system  of  the  Eomans,  the  Cloaca  Maxima 
the  circus,  the  census,  the  Capitoline  temple,  &c.  are  not 
necessarily  connected  with  the  names  of  Numa,  of  Servius 
Tullius,  of  the  Tarquins,  nor  can  they  be  referred  to  those 
sovereigns  by  the  invention  of  an  £etiological  myth.  There 
must,  therefore,  have  been  a  substantive  tradition,  uncon- 
nected with,  and  independent  of,  mere  names.  Occasions  will 
present  themselves  in  the  sequel  of  this  work  for  further 
examining  this  aitiological  theory— as,  for  example,  in  its 
application  to  the  story  of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii  i—and  we 
need  not,  therefore,  pursue  the  subject  here. 

Having  thus  considered  the  causes  which  have  been 
assigned  for  the  existence  of  the  Eoman  history,  we  will  next 
proceed  to  examine  the  arguments  which  have  been  brouglit 
forward  against  its  authenticity  from  its  alleged  general 
improbability. 

One  of  these  arguments  is  based  on  the  supernatural  occur- 
rences  which   it   relates.      Schwegler,   after  examining   the 
sources   of  Ptoman   history,   observes :  2  "  By  the   proceeding 
exposition  we  think  it  has  been  sufficiently  shown  what  the 
case  is  with  regard  to  the  testimony  of  the  earliest  Roman 
history;  and  that  if  this  history  has  been  recently  claimed  as 
'attested,' 3  a  very  confused  idea  of  historical  'attestation'  lies 
at  the  bottom  of  such  a  notion.     What  does  it   signify  to 
assert  over  and  over  again  that  it  was  once  historically\anded 
down,  and  that  the  Piomans  themselves  believed  it  ?     By  the 
same  maxim,  anybody  might  claim  the  whole  Grecian  mytho- 
logy as  history,  since  that  was  also  handed  down,  and  also  at 
one  time  believed.     By  this  maxim  Ptomulus  was  actually  the 
son  of  Mars,  and  Picus,  Faunus,  and  Latinus  were  once  really 
kings  of  Laurentum.      Even  Dionysius  says  :  •*  '  At  that  time 
Faunus  reigned  over  the  aborigines,  a  man  of  action  as  well 
as  great  wisdom  : '  and  later  authors  even  give  the  years  of 
the  three  Laurentine  kings.^     If  we  are  to  admit  at  once  as 

1  Below,  p.  190,  seqq.  2  p^^j^  j^  g  ^g 

3  Tlir>  aiiUior  .seems  to  be  alliuling  to  the  History  of  Gcrlach  and  Baehofen. 
^^''''  '•  '^^'  ^  Eusebius,  Ilicroiiynnis,  Syncellus. 


ex 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE  SUPERNATURAL. 


CXI 


historical  all  that  the  Eoman  historians  relate  in  good  faith;  if 
we  are  to  suffer  ourselves  to  be  led  in  the  representation  of 
the  deeds  of  the  Eomans  by  the  Eoman  standard  of  know- 
ledge and  belief ;  it  is  much  more  consistent  to  accept,  with 
Theod.  Eyck,  even  Janus  and  Hercules  as  historical  persons, 
than  to  draw  the  boundary  line  between  the  mythical  and  the 
historical  so  arbitrarily  as  it  is  drawn  in  the  most  recent 
defences  of  the  history.  This  boundary  line  must  be  drawn 
somewhere  else;  it  must  be  drawn  where  tlie  supernatural 
events  cease :  for  the  miraculous,  the  '  dearest  cliikl '  of 
popular  belief,  is  the  surest  criterion  of  invention.  Where 
miracles  cease,  there  history  begins." 

On  this  it  mav  be  remarked  that  if  the  line  is  to  be  drawn 
where  the  supernatural  ceases,  then  it  must  be  placed  a  great 
deal  lower  than  where  Schwegler  draws  it.     It  is  commonly 
allowed  that  the  narrative  of  the  Second  Punic  War  is  his- 
torical.    Yet  it  was  a  general  belief  among  the  Eomans  that 
Hannibal   was   conducted    over  the   Alps   by   some   divine 
being. ^     Livy  records  many  prodigies  tliat  occurred  in  the 
year  B.C.  169 — as  a  torch  in  the  lieavens,  a  speaking  cow,  a 
weeping  statue  of  Apollo,  showers  of  stones  and  blood,  &c.2 
Such  prodigies  continued  to  be  publicly  recorded  and  expiated 
down  to  the  imperial  times.     It  is  related  that,  a  few  months 
before  the  murder  of  elulius  Csesar,  there  was  discovered  at 
Capua,  in  the  reputed  tomb  of  Capys,  its  founder,  a  brazen 
tablet  with  a  Greek  inscription,  purporting  that  when  the 
bones  of  Capys  should  be  disinterred  it  would  happen  that  a 
descendant  of  Julius  would  be  killed  by  the  hands  of  his 
relatives,    and   would    be    presently   avenged   amidst  great 
calamities  of  Italy.     This  was  no  mere  vulgar  report.      It 
rested  on  the  testimony  of  Cornelius  Balbus,  the  friend  and 
biographer  of  Caesar. "^     The  horses  which    C?esar  had  con- 
secrated on  passing  the  Eubicon,  and  released  from  further 
service,  were  seen  before  his  death  to  abstain  from  food  and 
to  weep  abundantly.     The  arms  of  Mars,  which  were  in  his 
house   as   Pontifex  Maximus,  were  heard  to  clatter  in  the 
night,  and  the  folding  doors  of  the  chamber  in  which  he  slept 
1  PolvK  iii.  48.  «  Lib.  xliii.  13.  »  g^p^^  q^^^  gj^ 


'•a  , 


I 


•  ?«  - 


■J    . 
•.ft  ■ 

.■§■ 


:i%- 


ir. 


■  ."1. 

y.' 

-I 

'■v!> 


I' 


c<- 


.     ■•■*■ 


f  v.- 


opened  of  themselves.  A  wren  with  a  laurel  branch  seeking 
refuge  in  Pompey's  curia  was  torn  to  pieces  by  other  birds. 
There  were  also  the  omens  of  his  wife's  dream,  of  the  sooth- 
sayer's warning,  of  his  own  abortive  sacrifices,  &c.^  We 
might  even  go  down  to  the  reign  of  Constantino,  and  instance 
the  labarum  and  the  hosts  of  celestial  w^arriors  seen  in  the 
sky.  Now  these  portents  are  quite  as  wonderful  as  those 
recorded  in  the  regal  period, — such  as  the  eagle  which  lifted 
the  cap  of  Tarquin  the  Elder,  the  story  of  Attus  Navius  and 
the  whetstone,  the  miraculous  generation  of  Servius  Tullius, 
tlie  apparition  of  Castor  and  Pollux  at  Lake  Eegillus,  &c. ; 
yet  nobody  thinks  on  that  account  of  rejecting  the  fact  of 
Hannibal's  passage  of  the  Alps,  or  of  Ccesar's  assassination,  or 
of  Constantine's  conversion  to  Christianity. 

The  boundary  line  between  history  and  myth  cannot, 
therefore,  be  drawn  where  miraculous  events  cease  to  be 
related ;  for  it  is  plain  from  these  instances  that  they  may  be 
mixed  up  with  the  most  genuine  and  incontestable  history. 
It  may  be  allowed,  indeed,  that  as  a  people  becomes  more 
intellectual  and  rational,  such  events  become  fewer  and  fewer, 
and  at  last,  perhaps,  almost  vanish  altogether.  But  this  fact 
militates,  not  for  Schwegler's  view,  but  against  it.  History 
is  written  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  historian,  which 
varies  in  different  ages.  When  a  German  rationalist  now 
sits  down  to  recompose  a  history  of  early  Eome/Tie  of 
course  omits  all  miraculous  tales  ;  but  the  histor}^,  for  al  1 
tlTat,  is  not  half  so  credible  as  the  old  one  that  it  is  trying 
to^sui)])lant.  In  like  manner,  if  the  early  history  had  bee n 
invented,  accordin<j[  to  the  notion  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  and 
oTlier  critics,  in  the  latter  centuries  ofHthe  re^ublic,^we  may 
be  sure" that  we  should" iiot  havefonnd  half  so  Inany  miracles 
in  it.     The  occurrence  of  them  is  a  proof  of  its  genuineness  :  , ; 

Tliey  show  that  it  was  written  when  such  tilings  were  "cur-  ^-^"^^'^^ 
rently  believed ;  that  it  was  noted  down  contemporaneously,  s^^-^'^'*'^ 
or  liearly  so,  by  the  pontiffs.     Such  miraculous  events,  there-  ^^--^-x^v^ 
fore.  Instead  of  being  "the  surest  fTrirprimi  of  invHntiop  "  are 
a  sure  criterigiLjQf-the  abeonco  of  invcntiuii ;  that  is,  in:  the 

^  Su(>t.  C*s.  81,  and  Dion  Cuss.  xliv.  18. 


i 


i 


ex  11 


IMTERXAL   EVIDP:NCE. 


writers  of  the  history.  But  we  are  not  bound  to  believe 
fiese  stories,  like  Theod.  Evck,  because  the  Iioinaiis  believed 
them ;  nor  to  reject  the  history  because  they  believed  them. 
In  fact,  the  educated  Eomans  of  the  later  ages,  like  Livy,  did 
not  believe  them ;  but  they  did  not  on  that  account  reject 
the  remainder  of  the  history.  Schwegler's  argument  on  this 
subject  is  altogether  beside  the  purpose.  Tlie  Grecian  mytho- 
logy never  pretended  to  be  composed,  like  the  Roman  history, 
from  records.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  believe  that 
Romulus  was  the  son  of  Mars,  but  only  that  the  Romans,  or 
a  great  part  of  them,  believed  him  to  be  so.  If  later  authors 
have  accepted  some  of  these  fables,  that  is  an  argument 
against  their  judgment,  and  not  against  the  early  history. 
Dionysius,  who  was  an  injudicious  historian,  believed  a  great 
many  things  that  Livy  rejected.  We  need  not,  therefore, 
suffer  ourselves  to  be  led  "  by  the  Roman  standard  of  know- 
ledge and  belief,"  and  follow  Theodore  Ryck  ;  but  neither,  at 
the  same  time,  need  we  be  led  by  the  standard  set  up  by 
the  modern  rationalistic  critics,  and  reject  everything  indis- 
criminately on  account  of  a  few  wonderful  tales. 

After  enumerating  several  of  these  supernatural  events  in 
the  early  history, Schwegler  proceeds  to  remark :i  "Nobody  at 
present  any  longer  believes  these  traditions  to  be  historical 
facts  ;  yet  many  still  entertain  the  childish  notion  that  we 
have  only  to  reject  these  too  manifest  fables,  and  to  strip  off 
from  the  mythic  narrative  what  is  evidently  exaggerated  and 
impossible,  and  so  find  in  the  remainder  genuine  and  actual 
history.  They  reflect  not  that  the  wonderful  and  super- 
natural is  the  very  life,  soul,  and  genetic  motive  of  the  myth 
— not  the  husk,  but  the  kernel ;  and  that  when  this  is  stripped 
away  the  remainder  is  merely  the  caimt  mortuum  of  the  old 
poetic  legend,  and  the  furthest  possible  from  an  historical 
fact.  And,  in  general,  what  right  have  we  to  regard  a  narra- 
tive which  is  everywhere  interwoven  with  manifest  inven- 
tions, as  perfectly  historical  in  all  those  points  where  the 
invention  is  not  palpable,  which  contain  nothing  absolutely 
impossible  ?     Such  a  narrative  must  rather,  on  account  of  its 

1  B.  i.  Buch  i.  §  21,  S.  51. 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE    SUPERNATURAL. 


CXUl 


connexion  with  what  is  indubitably  unhistorical,  pass  at  least 
for  problematical,  even  where  it  contains  nothing  impossible 
in  itself." 

The  force  of  this  reasoning  depends  on  the  following 
assumptions  :  that  the  early  Roman  history  is  mythical ;  and 
that  the  wonderful  and  supernatural  stories  which  we  find  in 
it  prove  it  to  be  so.  This  involves  the  assertion  that  all 
events  connected  with  any  supernatural  story  must  neces- 
sarily be  fabulous ;  but  we  have  already  seen  in  the  case  of 
CVesar,  &c.  that  this  assertion  is  not  true. 

The  resolution  of  the  question  here  involved  depends  on 
tliat  of  another— what  was  tlie  true  origin  of  the  early  Roman 
history?  If  it  was  nothing  but  a  myth,  then  we  may  admit 
that,  when  it  is  divested  of  tlie  wonderful  and  supernatural, 
the  residue  will  be  nothing  but  a  cajmt  mortuum.  But  even 
Schwegler  himself  has  not  ventured  to  assign  to  it  a  purely 
mythical  origin.  Thus  in  a  passage  in  his  twenty-sixth 
section,  which  we  have  already  translated,^  he  says  :  '*  It  must 
be  recognised  that  certain  fundamental  things  in  the  traditional 
history  of  the  kings  are  historical,  and  derived  from  historical 
memory.  .  .  .  But  over  this  foundation  of  facts  a  rank  and 
luxuriant  growth  of  invention  has  entwined  itself;  a  growth 
of  legends  which  we  must  now  more  closely  examine,"  &c. 

It  follows,  tlien,  from  Schwegler's  own  words,  that  if  we 
strip  off*  the  rank  and  luxuriant  inventions,  the  residuum 
will  be  something  more  than  a  ca2mt  mortmcm  :  it  will  be,  on 
his  own  showing,  genuine  history. 

In  fact,  there  is  no  ground  at  all  for  assuming  the  early 
Roman  history,  after  the  foundation  of  the  city,  to  be  mythical. 
The  supernatural  occurrences  bear,  after  all,  a  very  small  pro- 
portion to  the  mass  of  prosaic  details  which  it  contains; 
details  as  far  removed  as  j)Ossible  from  poetical  invention! 
The  miracles  are  only  such  as  might  very  readily  spring  up 
among  an  illiterate  and  superstitious  people,  especially  when 
the  belief  in  them  was  encouraged  and  propagated  by  priest- 
craft. The  exploits  of  the  Maid  of  Orleans  are  historical ; 
\rt  few,  perhaps,  will  believe  the  supernatural  details  with 

*  Above,  p.  xcix. 


CXIV 


INTERN^VL   EVIDENCE. 


which  they  are  connected  :  her  commission  from  heaven  to 
achieve  Charles  YII.'s  coronation  at  Eheims,  her  revelation  to 
that  monarch  of  a  secret  which  he  believed  to  be  confined  to 
his  own  breast.  The  story  of  Jeanne  d'Arc  is  as  romantic 
and  incredible  as  anything  in  the  early  Roman  history ;  and 
in  like  manner  its  supernatural  details  are  doubtless  the 
product  either  of  enthusiasm  or  craft. 

Another  argument  against  the  authenticity  of  the  history 
is  derived  from  the  contradictions  which  it  is  alleged  to  con- 
tain.    On  this  head  Schwegler  remarks :  ^  "  A  further  proof 
of  the  little  authenticity  of  the  earliest  history  of  Eome  is 
the  striking  contradiction  of  the  accounts :  a  contradiction 
which  displays  itself  in  numberless  points  ;  and  not  only  in 
minor  details,  but   also   often  in  important  facts  ;  and  thus 
places  the  whole  history  of  that  period  in  a  doubtful  light. 
A  period  whose  history  is  so  anomalous  and  contradictory 
cannot  possibly  pass  for  historical.     Take,  for  instance,  the 
astounding  jumble   in  the  traditions  concerning  Ivomulus's 
descent  I     How  can  these  traditions,  which  make  the  founder 
of   Eome   sometimes   the   son,  sometimes   the  grandson,  of 
JEneas,  and  sometimes  represent  him  as  born  five  hundred 
years  later,  claim  the  slightest  pretension  to  historical  credi- 
bility ?     Concerning  the  birth  of  Servius  Tullius,  and  medi- 
ately concerning  his  attaining  of  the  throne,  four  different 
traditions  are  preserved,  of  which  precisely  the  two  that  are 
relatively  the  best  attested,  the  national  Eoman  tradition  and 
that  of  the  Tuscan  Annals,  are  separated  from  each  other  by 
an  immeasurable  chasm,  that  cannot  be  filled  up.   We  cannot 
here  instance  all  these  contradictions  of  tradition ;  they  will 
be  spoken  of  in  their  proper  places  :  ^ye  may  only  remark 
here    that   the   fragment   of   Dionysius   recently   found   has 
afforded  a  new  proof  how  low^  the  variation  and  uncertainty 
of  tradition  reaches;  since  that  the  second  dictatorship  of 
Cincinnatus  and  all  connected  with  it  is  a  fable,  can  no  longer 
be  the  subject  of  any  well-founded  doubt.      AVhat  in  this 
point  chiefly  excites  suspicion  against  the  common  tradition 
is,  that  it  is  found  to  be  in  contradiction  with  the  documents, 

1  B.  i.  F>iuli  i.  }{  1(5. 


ARGUMENT   FROM   CONTRADICTIONS. 


CXV 


It: 


where  any  of  these  have  chanced  to  be  preserved.  Neither 
the  alliance  of  the  younger  Tarquin  w4th  the  Gabines,  nor 
the  first  commercial  treaty  with  Carthage,  nor  the  treaty  of 
confederacy  of  Sp.  Cassius,  can  be  brought  into  accordance 
with  the  traditional  history ;  and  ^ye  may  suspect  that  this 
tradition  might  be  show^n  to  be  falsified  in  other  points  in 
case  more  documents  had  come  down  to  us." 

Let  us  here  again  remind  the  reader  that  it  is  far  from  our 
purpose  to  maintain  that  every  incident  of  the  early  Eoman 
history  is  strictly  historical.  It  would  be  absurd  to  claim  for 
a  narrative  coming  down  from  comparatively  rude  and  illiterate 
times,  and  in  so  fragmentary  a  form,  tlie  same  historical 
authority  which  may  be  accorded,  for  instance,  to  the  history 
of  England  during  the  last  two  or  three  centuries.  All  that 
we  contend  for  is  that  there  is  evidence  enough  to  establish 
the  main  outlines  of  the  narrative  after  the  foundation  of  the 
city ;  to  prove  the  names  of  the  seven  kings,  their  order  of 
succession,  and  the  principal  events  of  their  reigns  ;  and  thus 
to  vindicate  the  history  from  being,  as  some  modern  writers 
have  called  it,  a  mere  fantasy,  or  to  justify  its  being  treated 
as  Dr.  jVIommsen  has  done  in  his  recent  work,  where  the 
individuality  of  the  kings  is  completely  ignored  ;  and  though 
many  of  the  events  of  the  history  are  accepted,  yet  they  are 
interpreted  and  reconstructed  in  a  manner  often  entirely  new, 
and  quite  unjustified  by  any  sound  critical  principles. 

But,  after  all,  these  alleged  contradictions  have  been  very 
much  exaggerated,  as  we  shall  endeavour  to  show  in  the 
proper  places,  with  regai'd  to  those  instances  which  fall  within 
the  compass  of  the  present  work.  Many  of  them  arise  from 
the  absurdity  and  ignorance  of  Dionysius  and  Plutarch  ;  but 
if  those  writers,  from  their  inadequate  acquaintance  with  the 
Eoman  history  and  constitution,  as  well  as  their  imperfect 
knowledge  of  the  T.atin  tongue,  made  statements  which  are 
at  variance  with  those  of  Latin  authors,  this  forms  no  just 
ground  of  charge  against  the  history.  We  wdll  not  deny  that 
the  carelessness  of  Livy  may  now^  and  then  lend  a  colour  to 
the  same  charge ;  but  such  instances  are  rare  and  of  minor 
importance. 


'^ 


CXVl 


INTERNAL    EVII>EXCE. 


ARGUMENT   FROM   CHRONOLOGY. 


CXVU 


Witli  regard  to  the  instances  of  contradiction  alleged  in  the 
paragraph  just  translated,  we  may  remark  tliat  we  abandon 
at  once  the  wliole  history  before  the  foundation  of  tlie  city. 
It  was  invented,  though  perhaps  from  some  obscure  vestiges 
of  tradition,  in  order  to  carry  up  the  Eonian  lineage  to 
iEneas.  Hence  the  difference  of  some  five  centuries  in  the 
birth  of  Eomulus ;  who,  as  we  shall  endeavour  to  show  in  the 
proper  place,^  was  probably  tlie  son,  or  grandson,  of  a  Greek 
wlio  had  landed  on  the  Italian  coast  not  a  great  many  years 
before  the  foundation  of  Eome.  Of  the  birth  of  Servius 
Tullius,  and  the  mode  in  which  he  obtained  the  throne,  we 
shall  also  speak  in  the  proper  place.  The  next  instance  of 
contradiction,  regarding  the  second  dictatorship  of  Cincinnatus, 
falls  beyond  the  limits  of  the  present  work.  But  that  the 
fragment  of  Dionysius  lately  discovered  can  be  said,  on  any 
sound  critical  principles,  to  prove  the  account  a  fable,  we 
altogether  deny.  All  it  proves  is  tliat  one  or  two  annalists 
related  the  matter  differently,  and  so  improbably  that  even 
Dionysius  himself  rejected  their  version  of  it. 

The  other  instances  adduced  by  Schwegler  will  be  examined 
in  their  proper  places ;  where  in  particular  we  shall  endeavour 
to  show  that  the  commercial  treaty  with  Carthage,  so  far  from 
being  inconsistent  with  the  traditional  history,  confirms  its 
main  features  in  a  most  remarkable  manner.  But  it  will  be 
evident  that  to  enter  further  here  into  this  subject  would  be 
to  anticipate  the  scope  of  the  following  book. 

One  of  the  chief  arguments  brought  against  the  early  Eoman 
history  is  founded  on  its  chronology.  On  this  subject  Schwegler 
remarks  :  '^  ''  The  seven  kings  are  related  to  have  reigned  alto- 
gether 240  or  244  years.  It  has  been  frequently  remarked 
that  this  number  contradicts  all  experience  and  probability.  It 
gives  on  an  average  thirty-four  years  for  the  reign  of  each  king  ; 
whilst  in  Venice,  from  the  year  805  to  the  year  1311,  that  is 
in  five  centuries,  forty  doges  reigned ;  ^  each  therefore  having  a 
reign  of  12|  years,  or  about  a  third  part  of  the  average  of  the 
reigns  of  the  Eoman  kings.     The  examples  which  have  been 

^  St-e  below,  sec.  ii.  p.  23,  seq. ;  28,  scq. 

2  IUk.Ii  xviii.  §  20,  8.  Sm.  =»  Nicbuhr,  Roin.  Gc.s.li.  i.  :30],  Amu.  912. 


"■jJJV,  .T 


adduced  to  justify  the  traditional  chronology  are  not  to  the 
purpose,  inasmuch  as  the  Eoman  kings  did  not  succeed  to  the 
tlirone  by  birth,  but  obtained  it  by  election ;  and  consequently 
not  as  boys  or  youths,  but  in  the  age  of  manhood.     Besides, 
it  must  be  remarked  that,  of  the  whole  seven  kings,  only  two 
died  a  natural  death,  and  that  the  last  survived  liis  overthrow 
about  fifteen  years.     The  traditional  chronology  also  stands 
in  iiTcconcilable  contradiction  with  the  remaining  tradition ; 
and  if  Tarquinius  Prisons  actually  reigned  thirty-eight  years, 
Sei-v^ius  Tullius  forty-four,  and  the  younger  Tarquin  twenty- 
five,  there  arises,   as  we  have  already  shown,i   a  chain  of 
absurdities  and  impossibilities.     Lastly,  the  number  of  240 
years,  which  the  older  tradition  gives  for  the  regal  period, 
stands  in  such  a  mathematical  relation  to  the  number  120, 
the  period  which  elapses  between  the  expulsion  of  the  kings 
and  the  Gallic   catastrophe,  as  justly  to   excite  suspicion ; 
especially  if  one  views  in  connexion  with  both  numbers  the 
twelve  Eomulean  birds  of  fate. 

"  Under  these  circumstances  the  age  of  Eome  cannot  at 
all  be  determined.  But  that  the  origin  of  the  city  is  to  be 
dated  higher  than  it  is  placed  by  tradition,  has  been  rightly 
inferred  from  the  Tarquinian  buildings,  and  especially  from 
the  Cloaca  ^laxima.^ 

"  The  traditional  years  of  each  king's  reign  are  of  course 

1  In  Buch  i.  §  20. 

2  See  vScipio  I^Iaffei,  Di2)lomatica  clie  serve  d'  Introduzzione  all'  Arte  Critica, 
1727,  p.  60  ;  Levesque,  Hist.  crit.  de  la  Rej).  Rom.  1807,  i.  p.  52;  Niebuhr,' 
Vortr.  iiber  Rom.  Gesch.  i.  128.  AVhen  Schwegler  cites  tlie  authority  of  MafFei, 
he  could  not  have  refeiTed  to  his  work,  for  at  p.  60  of  the  edition  of  1727, 
which  reference  is  copied  from  Levesque,  there  is  nothing  at  all  relating  to  the 
subject.  After  long  hunting  for  it  we  found  the  following  passage,  which  we 
sui)poFe  is  the  one  meant,  at  p.  251  :  '*I.e  Cloache  di  Roma  fatte  in  tempo  di 
Tanpiinio  Frisco,  opera  descritta  da  Plinio  (xxxvi.  15)  per  massima  di  tiittc 
V  altre,  e  di  cui  recano  ancora  maraviglia  i  pochi  avanzi,  non  mostrano  per  certo 
una  Citta  cominciata  cencintpiant'  anni  avanti,  ma  "piu  tosto  rcsa  gia  gi'ande 
in  lungo  corso  d'cth,,  per  numeroso  popolo  e  per  richezza."  We  have  nothing 
liere  but  an  ipse  dixit  of  Maffei,  copied  by  Levesque,  founded  on  the  false  view 
that  the  builders  of  Rome  could  have  been  nothing  but  barbarians.  The 
assumption  rests  altogether  on  a  wrong  idea  of  the  constructive  art  among  the 
ancient  peoples.  And  let  it  be  remembered  that,  though  the  Cloaca  is^cer- 
taiidy  a  noble  sewer,  it  was  originally  of  no  great  length,  extending  only  to 
the  Forum,  which  it  was  intended  to  drain. 


CXVlll 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


invented.  On  what  principle  the  Pontifices  proceeded  in  the 
fixing  of  them  cannot  now  be  entirely  discovered.  We  can 
only  see  thus  far,  that  they  placed  Nunia's  death  at  the  end 
of  the  first  physical  s^culum,  and  that  of  Tullus  Ilostilius  at 
the  end  of  the  first  civil  Sceculuni."  ^ 

On  this  w^e  may  remark,  that  it  is  of  no  use  to  give  us  the 
average  reigns  of  forty  Venetian  doges,  unless  their  age  at  the 
time  of  their  accession  is  also  given.     We  know  that  most  of 
the  Eoman  kings  were  young  men  when  they  began  to  reign. 
Komulus  was  only  eighteen.     Numa  is  said  to  have  been  born 
on  the  day  that  Eome  was  founded ;  and  therefore,  as  Komulus 
reigned  thirty-eight  years,  and  as  there  was  an  interregruni 
of  a  year,  he  would,  by  the  common  computation,  have  been 
thirty-nine  when  he  was  elected.    But  in  the  time  of  Komulus, 
at  all  events,  the  year  consisted  of  only  ten  months — an  allow- 
ance, by  the  way,  which  is  never  made  by  the  critics,  though 
it  suffices  of  itself  to  throw  out  all  the  fine  calculations  about 
the  speculum.     Deducting,  therefore,  one  sixth  from  his  re- 
puted age,  Numa  would  have  been  thirty-two  at  his  accession, 
and  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  his  long  reign.     Tullus 
Hostilius  was  a  young  man—"  tum  (stas  viresque,  tum  avita 
quoque  gloria,  animuni  stimulabat "  -—the  grandson  of  a  con- 
temporary of  Komulus.     There  is  nothing  by  which  we  can 
determine  the  age  of  Ancus  at  the  time  of  his  election ;  but 
as  he  was  the  the  grandson  of  Numa,  and  as,  from  the  active 
duties  required  of  him,  the  Komans  appear  to  have  preferred 
a  young  man  for  their  king,  we  may  conclude  that  he  was 
not  very  far  advanced  in  life ;  but  even  if  he  was,  he  may 
very  well  have  reigned  the  twenty-four  years  assigned  to  him. 
Tarquinius  may  probably  have  reached  middle  age  when  he 
ascended  the  throne ;  but  there  is  still  room  for  a  reign  of 
thirty-seven  years.     The  birth  of  Servius  Tullius  is  narrated 
when  the  reign  of  Tarquin  was  well  advanced,  and  therefore 
he  must  have  been  a  young  man  when  he  seized  the  throne. 


1  See  more  in  Niebuhr,  Rom.  Geseh.  i.  253,  Yortr.  iiber  Rom.  Gesch.  i.  84  ; 
and  Schwegler,  p.  557.  The  saeculuni  civile  consisted  of  110  years,  and  Tullus 
Hostilius  died  in  the  year  of  Rome  110  (  =  38  -H  1  -h  39  -f  32). 

2  Liv.  i.  22. 


ARGUMENT   FROM   CHRONOLOGY. 


CXIX 


Tarquin  the  Proud  reigned  only  twenty-five  years,  and  conse- 
quently there  is  no  occasion  to  compute  his  age  at  his  accession. 

The  principle  of  election,  therefore,  if  youth  and  strength 
were  among  the  elements  which  determined  it,  was,  contrary 
to  the  assertion  of  Schwegler,  more  favourable  to  length  of 
reign  than  hereditary  succession.  A  father,  son,  and  grand- 
son, even  under  favourable  circumstances,  can  hardly  expect 
to  reign  more  than  a  century,  which,  at  an  equal  average, 
would  fix  the  age  of  accession  at  thirty-three.  But  the 
greater  part  of  the  Koman  kings  acceded  considerably  below 
that  age  ;  and  if  most  of  them  met  a  violent  death,  it  must  be 
also  remembered  that  it  was  at  an  advanced  period  of  life,  and 
when  they  had  long  filled  the  throne. 

The  objections  to  the  chronology  of  the  Tarquins  will  be 
examined  under  the  reigns  of  those  sovereigns.  The  objec- 
tion about  the  mathematical  proportion  between  the  period  of 
the  kings'  reigns  and  that  between  their  expulsion  and  the 
destruction  of  the  city  is  nothing  but  what  a  popular  writer 
would  call  a  German  "  cobweb."  For,  first  of  all,  the  dura- 
tion commonly  assigned  to  the  regal  period  is  not  240  years, 
but  244 ;  and  the  former  number  is  obtained  by  striking  ofl', 
after  Polybius,  four  years  from  the  reign  of  Mima.  Again, 
when  this  is  done,  we  must  strike  off  at  all  events  six  or 
seven  years  from  the  reign  of  Romulus,  which  w^ould  reduce 
the  kingly  period  either  to  238  or  234  years,  and  again 
destroy  the  supposed  mathematical  proportion.  The  connect- 
ing of  these  years  with  the  twelve  vultures  is  another  "  cob- 
web," ^  as  well  as  Niebuhr's  hypothesis  about  the  chronology 
having  been  invented  according  to  the  reckoning  of  the  Quin- 
decemvirs  of  the  physical  and  civil  saeculum.     On  this  subject 

^  There  was  an  old  Roman  prophecy,  derived  from  the  Romulean  augury, 
about  the  duration  of  the  Roman  State  for  twelve  centuries.  See  Censorinus, 
De  Die  Nat.  c.  17  (who  took  it  from  Yarro)  ;  Claudian,  De  Bell.  Get.  v.  265, 
&c.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  connexion  there  is  between  the  expulsion 
of  the  kings  and  the  capture  of  the  city  by  the  Gauls,  or  what  ratio  the 
360  years  from  the  foundation  of  Rome  to  its  capture— even  if  we  admit  that 
calculation — bears  to  the  twelve  vultures.  For  though  360  may  be  divided 
by  twelve,  leaving  a  quotient  of  thirty  without  remainder,  the  meaning  of  such 
a  quotient  is  not  at  all  obvious  to  untranscendental  minds. 


cxx 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


Sclnvegler  remarks  :  ^  "  That  the  reigns  of  the  first  two  kings 
form  a  peculiar  order  of  things,  separated  from  the  hiter 
history,  is  in  a  certain  manner  shown  by  tradition,  wliich 
makes  the  first  sa^culum  of  the  city  expire  with  the  death  of 
Numa.  For  the  first  secular  festival  after  the  expulsion  of 
the  kings  was  celebrated,  according  to  the  Commentaries  of 
the  Quindecemvirs,  in  A.U.C.  298  ;  and  if  from  this  point  we 
calculate  the  s^culum  of  110  years  backwards,  the  beginning 
of  the  second  Sieculum  falls  in  A.u.c.  78,  and  this  very  year 
was  according  to  Polybius,  who  is  followed  by  Cicero,  the 
first  year  after  Xuma's  death.  Consequently  the  year  of 
Numa's  death  was  the  last  year  of  the  first  speculum.  The 
old  tradition  that  Numa  was  born  on  the  day  of  Itome's 
foundation  has  the  same  meaning.^  For,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Etruscan  rituals,  the  first  sieculum  of  a  city 
ended  with  him  who,  of  all  those  born  on  the  day  of  its 
foundation,  attained  the  greatest  age.  Hence  Xuma's  death, 
as  this  tradition  appears  to  intimate,  forms  the  line  of  demar- 
cation between  two  epochs.  And,  indeed,  with  his  death  the 
purely  mythical  epoch  of  Eome  expires,  and  the  half-his- 
torical time,  the  dawn  of  history,  begins  :  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  first  two  kings— the  one  the  son  of  a  god,  the 
other  the  husband  of  a  goddess— evidently  belong  to  a 
different  period  of  the  world  than  the  ordinary  one." 

The  last  sentence  of  this  paragraph  would  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  the  Quindecemviri  looked  upon  the  early  Itoman 
history  with  as  sceptical  an  eye  as  a  modern  German  critic  ; 
that  they  set  down  the  first  two  kings  as  mythical,  and  on 
that  account  fixed  on  the  close  of  the  second  king's  reign  as  a 
chronological  epoch.  That,  however,  was  not  the  only  reason 
for  choosing  that  epoch  ;  for  the  German  critics  are  always 
abundantly  supplied  with  reasons  for  their  theories:  there 
was  another,  which,  by  a  very  singular  coincidence,  also 
pointed  to  the  same  period,  namely— that  Numa,  who,  by 
Plutarch  at  least,  is  said  to  have  been  born  on  the  day  when 
Eome  was  founded,  then  closed  his  life.     We  will  not  stop  to 


1  B.  i.  S.  557. 


■i  Plut.  Num.  3  ;  Dion  Cass.  Fr.  6,  5. 


ARGUMENT  FROM  CHRONOLOGY. 


CXXl 


remark  that,  however  mythical  the  foundation  of  Rome  and 
the  reigns  of  the  first  two  kings  may  be  said  to  be,  they  are 
nevertheless  here  made  the  data  for  a  very  precise  chrono- 
logical computation,  but  will  pass  on  to  the  general  drift  of 
tlie  paragraph. 

And  first  we  will  ask  whether  we  are  to  suppose  that  the 
early  Eoman  history  was  written  in  accordance  with  these 
data  of  the  Quindecemviri  ?  The  seventeenth  chapter  of 
Censorinus,  "De  Die  Natali,"  from  which  all  this  ingenious 
web  is  spun,  shows  clearly  that  it  was  not.  TJie  Quindecem- 
viri stood  quite  alone  in  their  opinion  about  the  secular  games 
having  been  celebrated,  or  at  all  events  about  their  celebra- 
tion being  due,  at  the  expiration  of  every  110  years.  Their  cal- 
culation is  evidently  an  arbitrary  one,  made  at  the  time  when 
the  secular  games  were  celebrated  by  the  order  of  Augustus, 
and  confirmed  by  a  decree  of  that  emperor.  The  Quindecem- 
viri had  superseded  the  Decemviri  only  about  sixty  or  seventy 
years  previously — in  the  time  of  Sulla ;  so  that  if  it  had 
been  an  old  opinion  among  the  interpreters  of  the  Sibylline 
books,  the  authority  of  the  Decemvirs,  and  not  of  the  Quin- 
decemvirs, would  have  been  cited  for  it.  But  the  old  annalists 
— the  supposed  inventors  of  the  early  Eoman  history  and 
chronology — from  whom  Livy  and  the  other  historians  drew, 
flourished  long  before  this  time,  and  formed  quite  a  different 
opinion  of  the  chronology  of  these  games  ;  so  that  the  early 
chronology  could  not  have  been  invented  according  to  the 
Quindecemviral  saBculum  of  110  years.  We  subjoin  the  two 
statements.  According  to  the  Quindecemvirs,  the  games 
were  celebrated  as  follows:  a.u.c.  298,  408,  518,  628,  737.^ 
But  according  to  Valerius  Antias,  Varro,  Livy,  and  the 
historians  generally,  the  period  for  the  recurrence  of  the 
games  should  have  been  a  century,  though  they  were  actually 
celebrated  as  follows  :  a.u.c.  245,  305,  504,  605,2  737.     After 

1  This  seems  to  be  a  year  short  of  the  usual  period.  But  perhaps  Julius 
CjEsar's  year  of  confusion,  consisting  of  fifteen  months,  must  be  taken  into  the 
account.  The  period  is  confirmed  by  Horace's  Carmen  Saeculare  :  *'  Undenos 
decies  per  annos  orbis." 

'  There  was  a  slight  difference  with  regard  to  this  celebration ;  some  annalists, 
as  Piso,  Cn.  Gellius,  and  Cassius  Hemina,  placing  it  three  years  later,  or  in 

I 


cxxu 


INTERNAL   EVlDENCi:. 


ARGUMENT   FROM   CHRONOLOGY. 


CXXIU 


the  reign  of  Augustus  the  celebration  took  place  at  much 

shorter  intervals. 

We  may  remark  on  the  above  that  Valerius  Antias  and 
the  other  historians  placed  the  first  celebration  in  the  year 
after    the    expulsion    of  the  kings,  which   agrees  with  the 
account  in  Valerius  Maximus/  that  they  were  first  publicly 
instituted  by  Valerius  Publicola  in  his  first  consulship.     The 
games,  with  sacrifices  at  the  altar  of  Dis  and  Proserpine,  at  a 
place  in  the  Campus  Martins  called  Tarentum,  or  Terentum, 
had   indeed   been    previously  celebrated   by    an   individual 
named  Valerius,  out  of  gratitude  to,  and  by  direction  of,  the 
gods,  for  the    recovery   of  his  cliildren  from  a  pestilential 
disease  by  drinking  of  some  warm  springs  at  that  spot :  but 
this  was  a  private  matter,  totally  unconnected  with  the  state  ; 
and  the  celebration  of  the  games  by  the  Consul  Valerius  was, 
as  we  have  said,  the  first  public  one.     The  Quindecemvirs 
placed  tlieir  origin  still  lower,  or  in  a.u.c.  298.     Yet  Niebuhr 
dreams  about  carrying  them  up  to   the  origin  of  the  city, 
and  thus  making  them  a  festival  commemorative  of  the  age 
of  Eome.     AVith  this   view,  Niebuhr,^  who  is   followed  by 
Schwegler   in  the   passage  already  cited,    mistranslates   the 
following    sentence    of   Censorinus :    ''Primes    enim   ludos 
sieculares  exactis  regibus,  post  Ptoniam  conditam  annis  ccxlv. 
a  Valerio  Publicola  institutes  esse,  Valerius  Antias  ait ;  ut 
xv-virorum  Commentarii  annis  cclxxxxviii.  M.  Valerio,  Sp. 
Verginio  Coss.  : "  by  rendering  "  the  first  secular  festival  after 
the  expulsion  of  the  kings  was  celebrated"  &c.  instead  of,  "  the 
first  secular  festival  was  instituted  after  the  expulsion  of  the 
kings ; "  the  first  method  of  translation  assuming  that  there 
had'' been  celebrations  during  the  regal  period;  the  second, 
which  is  the  only  correct  one,  excluding  any  such  assumption. 
And  this  mistranslation  is  made  in  contradiction  of  a  direct 
statement  of  Censorinus  only  a  page  further  on,  viz.  :  "  Cum 

608  ;  and  as  Hemiiia  lived  at  this  time,  he  ought  to  have  known.     But  the 
discrepancy  probably  arose  from  some  difference  in  fixing  the  foundation  era. 

1  Lib.  ii.  c.  iv.  s.  6. 

2  B.  i.  S.  253  :   "  Das  erste   Sacularfest  nach  Yerbannung  der  Konige  sey 

in  Jahr  298  gef«iyert  worden,"  u.s.n-. 


;^"l 


;-S 


ab  urbis  primordio  ad  reges  exactos,  annos  ccxliv.,  (ludos), 
factos  esse,  7ic7no  sit  auctor"  So  that  this  attack  on  the 
Eoman  chronology  is  founded  on  the  mistranslation  of  a 
common  Latin  book  like  Censorinus  ! 

In  fact  ^the  festival  had,  properly  speaking,  no  immediate 
connexion  with  the  age  of  Eome.  And  tliis  w^as  most  dis- 
tinctly the  opinion  of  Censorinus  himself,  who  says,  after 
recording  the  different  a^ras  of  celebration  before  given: 
"  Hinc  animadvertere  licet,  neque  post  centum  annos,  ut  hi 
referrentur  ludi,  statum  esse,  neque  post  centum  decem. 
Quorum  etiamsi  alterutrum  retro  fuisset  observatum,  non 
tamen  id  satis  argumenti  esset,  quo  quis  his  ludis  scecula 
discerni  constanter  affirmet,  pra3sertim  cum  ab  itrbis  iwimordio, 
ad  reges  exactos,  annos  ccxliv.  factos  esse,  nemo  sit  auctor. 
Quod  tempus  proculdubio  naturali  majus  est  sa^culo.  Quod 
si  quis  credit,  ludis  scecularibus  scecula  discerni,  sola  nominis 
origine  inductus ;  sciat,  saBCulares  dici  potuisse,  quod  ])lerumque 
semelfiant  hominis  aetate."  'Yet  it  is  in  the  face  of  this  opinion, 
and  from  the  very  same  chapter  which  contains  it,  that 
Niebuhr,  and  after  him  Schwegler,  have  derived  their  fanciful 
theory  !  in  aid  of  which  it  w^as  necessary  to  cut  off  four  years 
from  the  received  chronology  of  the  kings,  and  to  assume  that 
the  Tuscan  notion  of  the  physical  saeculum  was  adopted  by 
the  Romans,  of  which  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  early  lioman  chronology  was 
not  manufactured  in  any  such  capricious  manner  as  that  here 
assumed.  That  it  contains  serious  errors  and  defects, — that  it 
is,  in  short,  the  w^eakest  point  in  the  history, — must  be  acknow- 
ledged ;  and  it  were  only  to  be  wished  that  a  portion  of  the 
superfluous  ingenuity  which  has  been  expended  in  not  very 
happy  attempts  to  explain  the  supposed  method  of  its  inven- 
tion, had  been  employed  rather  in  investigating  whether  there 
might  not  be  some  w^ay  of  reconciling  it  with  the  probability 
of  the  history.  This  is  the  very  difficult  task  which  we  here 
propose  to  ourselves ;  and  we  must  therefore  claim  for  the 
attempt  the  candid  consideration  of  the  reader.^ 

^  The  WTiter  has  before  slightly  touched  upon  the  subject  in  the  introduction 
to  his  "  History  of  the  City  of  Rome." 

i  2  • 


CXXIV 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


The  idea  of  a  complete  astronomical  year,  at  the  end  of 
which  the  sun  is  found  in  the  same  position  in  the  heavens  as 
he  occupied  at  the  beginning,  is  so  familiar  to  us  that  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  a  period  at  which  any  other  notion  pre- 
vailed.    But  when  we  reflect  on  the  vast  amount  of  science 
and  observation  required  to  determine  this  year  with  any 
approach  to  accuracy,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  find  that 
among   rude   and  imperfectly  civilized  nations  the  grossest 
deviations  from  this  standard  prevailed.     The  period  of  the 
natural  day  is  a  measure  of  time  that  is  forced  upon  us  in- 
voluntarily.    Next  to  this,  the  revolutions  of  tlie  moon  afford 
the  most  striking  indication  of  the  lapse  of  time  ;  and  hence 
days  and  months  become  necessary  units  in  all  calculations 
where  time  is  concerned.     But  the  duration  of  the  astronomi- 
cal year  is  not  so  easily  ascertained,  and  especially  in  southern 
latitudes,  where  the  difference  between  the  seasons  is  not  so 
strongly  marked  as  in  more  northern  ones.     Ten  months  may 
perhaps  have  been  first  assigned  for  the  sun's  annual  course 
by  a  rude  guess  ;  or  because  the  scanty  decimal  arithmetic  of 
a  half-civilized  people— counting  on  the  ten  fingers— rendered 
them  unequal  to,  or  indisposed  for,  a  longer  calculation  ;  or 
they  may  have  been  satisfied  with  such  a  measure,  and  utterly 
regardless  of  a  scientific  accuracy— which,  indeed,  they  had  no 
means  of  attaining— although  in  a  few  revolutions  of  the  sun 
the  same  month  w^hich  had   been  midsummer  would  have 
become  midwinter.     And  we  know  the  force  of  habit.     When 
such  an  imperfect  year  had  become  habitual  among  a  people ; 
when  contracts  and  all  the  usages  both  of  civil  and  religious 
life  had  come  to  be  regulated  by  it ;   it  would  have  been 
difficult  to  change  it  for  a  more  accurate  and  scientific  year, 
even  if  the  means   for   calculating   such   a   one   had   been 

at  hand. 

Hence  we  are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  among  the  nations 
of  antiquity  years  of  various  duration  had  been  in  use,  and 
even  among  the  Italian  people.  Thus  the  Ferentines,  the 
Lavinians,  and  the  Albans  are  said  to  have  had  different  years  ;^ 
and  Laurentum,  which,  as  we  shall  show,  was  probably  the 

1  Censorin.  Do  Die  Nat.  c.  20. 


A  NEW  CHRONOLOGICAL  THEORY. 


CXXV 


mother  city  of  the  Eomans,  had  a  year  of  ten  months,  extend- 
ing from  IMarcli  to  December,  since  we  learn  from  Macrobius 
that  the  Laurentines  sacrificed  to  Juno,  who  was  with  them 
equivalent  to  Luna,  on  all  the  kalends  of  those  months.^  It 
was  almost  generally  agreed  among  the  authors  of  antiquity 
that  the  Eoman  year  also,  as  well  as  the  Laurentine,  at  first 
consisted  of  only  ten  months.  The  only  authors  who  dis- 
sented from  this  view  appear  to  have  been  Licinius  IVIacer  and 
Fenestella,^  whose  opinion  was  followed  by  Scaliger,  in  his 
'*  Emendatio  Temporum."  But  it  is  far  outweighed  by  more 
numerous  and  better  authorities ;  as  Junius  Gracchanus, 
Fulvius,  Yarro,  Suetonius,  Livy  (who  says  that  the  year  of 
twelve  months  was  introduced  by  Numa),  Ovid,  Aulus  Gellius, 
Macrobius,  and  others,  with  whom  Censorinus  agreed.  On 
the  subject  of  the  year  Ovid  says  : — 

"  Nee  totidem  veteres,  quot  nunc,  habuere  kalendas, 
Ille  minor  geminis  ineiisibus  annus  erat. 
Nonduni  tradidcrat  victas  victoribus  artes 
Graicia,  facundum,  sed  male  forte  genus. 
***** 

Ergo  animi  indociles  et  adhuc  ratione  carentes, 

Mensibus  egerunt  lustra  minora  decem. 
Annus  erat  decimum  quum  TiUna  rejdeverat  orbem, 

Hie  numerus  magno  tunc  in  honore  fuit 
Seu  quia  tot  digiti  per  quos  numerare  solemus,"  &c. 

The  question  is,  How  long  this  year  of  ten  months  lasted  ? 
The  lines  of  Ovid  would  seem  to  imply  that  the  astronomical 
year  was  not  introduced  till  Greece  had  been  conquered  by  the 
Eoman  arms  ;  but  that  appears  to  be  too  late  a  period.  The 
time  of  the  Decemvirs  might  be  a  probable  epoch,  and  they 
are  said  to  have  made  some  regulation  respecting  intercalation ; 
but  there  are  indications  that  the  year  of  ten  months  must 
have  lasted  beyond  their  time.  The  same  indications  seem  to 
show  that  two  sorts  of  years  were  in  use  at  the  same  time  at 
Home ;  one  a  moon-year,  consisting  of  »^55  days — the  introduc- 
tion of  w^hich  is  attributed  by  some  writers  to  Numa,  by  others 

1  "Sed  et  omnibus  kalendis,  a  mense  Martio  ad  Decembrem,  huic  Deaa 
kalendarum  die  supplicant." — Sat.  i.  15. 

2  Censorin.  De  Die  Nat.  c.  20. 


CXXVl 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


A   NEW   CHKONOLOGICAL   THEORY. 


ex  XVI 1 


to  Tarquinius  Priscus  or  Servius  Tullius — and  the  Komiileaii 
year  of  304  days.  The  knowledge  of  the  former  year,  and, 
indeed,  the  regulation  of  the  calendar  altogether,  seems  to 
have  been  confined  to  the  priests.  How  ignorant  the  laity 
were  of  the  lapse  of  time  and  revolutions  of  the  year  appears 
from  the  circumstance  that,  far  into  the  republican  times,  the 
consuls,  or  a  dictator  created  expressly  for  the  purpose,  were 
accustomed  to  drive  a  nail  into  the  wall  of  Minerva's  cell  in 
the  Capitoline  temple,  on  the  Ides  of  every  September,  in  order 
to  mark  the  lapse  of  time,  and  perhaps  to  serve  as  a  sort  of 
check  upon  the  priests.  The  monopoly  of  knowledge  on  the 
part  of  the  priests  is  also  shown  by  the  circumstance  that  it 
was  they  who  proclaimed  the  new  moon  and  fixed  the  Ides, 
and  who  retained  to  themselves  the  knowledge  of  the  Dies 
Fasti  and  Nefasti.  After  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius  the  cele- 
bration of  the  lustrum  every  fifth  year,  or  every  sixth  Eomu- 
lean  year,  brought  the  two  years  into  some  kind  of  harmony ; 
but,  as  is  well  known,  the  calendar  w\as  a  heap  of  confusion 
down  to  tlie  time  of  Julius  C?esar. 

It  cannot  be  imagined  that  the  Komulean  year  ceased  to  be 
observed,  for  civil  purposes,  after  the  time  of  Eomulus,  or 
indeed  for  a  long  while  afterwards.  There  were  certain 
inveterate  customs  connected  with  it  relating  to  some  of  the 
most  habitual  and  important  acts  of  life,  which  must  have 
required  a  long  period  to  take  so  firm  a  root.  As  Xiebuhr  has 
pointed  out,  a  year  of  ten  months  was  the  period  during  which 
widows  mourned  their  husbands  :  ^  it  was  also  the  term  for  the 
payment  of  portions  bequeathed  by  will,  for  credit  on  the  sale 
of  yearly  i^rolits,  for  loans,  and  for  calculating  the  rate  of 
interest.  Some  of  these  things  would  hardly  have  been  known 
in  tlie  reign  of  Romulus.  A  passage  in  Macrobius  illustrates 
still  more  strikingly  the  year  of  ten  months.  That  author 
relates^  that  in  ]\Iarch  the  matrons  waited  on  their  slaves  at 
supper,  as  their  masters  did  in  the  Saturnalia  of  December, 
in  order  tliat  tlie  honour  thus  accorded  to  them  at  the 
beginning  of  the  year  might  incline  them  to  be  obedient ; 
for  ^yhich,  at  the  end  of  it,  they  were  rewarded  by  the 
1  Hibt.  of  Rome,  vol.  i.  p.  342.  »  Sat.  i.  12.  , 


■ifk".  ■ 


Saturnalia.  But  there  could  have  been  few,  if  any,  slaves 
at  Rome  in  the  time  of  Romulus.  The  fact  of  the  asylum 
is  totally  at  variance  wdth  the  existence  of  any  considerable 
slave-population. 

That  the  year  originally  began  with  March  is  shown  by  the 
names  of  several  of  the  months  ;  as  Quintilis,  Sextilis,  Sep- 
tember, &c. :  for  Quintilis,  afterwards  Julius,  was  the  fifth 
month  from  jVIarch ;  Sextilis,  afterwards  Augustus,  the  sixth, 
&c. :  January  and  February  were  added  to  the  end  of  the  year. 
Thus  Varro  :  ^  "  Ad  hos  qui  additi,  prior  a  principe  Deo 
Januarius  appellatus  ;  posterior  ab  diis  inferis  Februarius." 
Cicero 2  also  calls  February  the  last  month  of  the  year:  and 
the  same  fact  is  apparent  from  its  being  made  the  intercalary 
month ;  for  it  was  natural  to  add  the  extra  days  at  the  end  of 

the  year. 

There  are  several  passages  in  Livy  which  show  that,  down 
to  a  very  advanced  period  of  the  republic,  the  lustrum  re- 
curred not  every  fifth  but  every  sixth  year,  or  consulship  ;  and 
that,  consequently,  the  two  years,  the  priestly  year  of  twelve 
months  and  the  civil  one  of  ten  months,  nuist  during  that 
time  have  co-existed.  There  are  distinct  traces  of  the  Romu- 
lean  civil  year  having  existed  down  to  B.C.  293.  That  year 
was  the  consulship  of  L.  Papirius  Cursor  and  S.  Carvilius 
Maximus,  and  in  it  the  lustrum  was  performed  by  the  censors, 
P.  Cornelius  Arvina  and  C.  Marcius  Rutilus.=^  But  the 
preceding  lustrum  had  been  celebrated  in  the  sixth  previous 
consulship,  that  of  M.  Fulvius  Psetinus  and  T.  Manlius  Tor- 
quatus,*by  the  censors,  P.  Sempronius  Sophus  and  P.  Sulpicius 
Saverrio,  in  B.C.  299,  according  to  the  ordinary  chronology. 
Therefore  the  lustrum,  which  was  a  period  of  five  astronomical 
years,  contained  six  consulships,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing, 
six  civil  years  of  ten  months.  The  consulships  are  as  follows : 
—B.C.  299  (lustrum),  M.  Fulvius  Retinus,  T.  IManlius  Tor- 
quatus  ;  B.C.  298,  L.  Cornelius  Scipio,  Cn.  Fulvius ;  B.C.  297, 
Q.  Fabius,  P.  Decius  ;  B.C.  296,  L.  Volumnius,  Ap.  Claudius ; 
B.C.  295,  Fabius  and  Decius  again ;  B.C.  294,  L.  Postumius 
Megellus,  M.  Atilius  Regulus ;  B.C.  29:->  (lustrum),  L.  Pa]niius 

1  L.  L.  vi.  34.  ^  De  Lv-.  ii.  54.  ^  Liv.  x.  47. 


4  Ibid.  c.  i^. 


CXX  VIU 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


A   NEW   CHRONOLOGICAL   THEORY. 


CXXIX 


Cursor,  S.  Candlius  IMaximus.  The  Fasti  place  this  last 
lustrum  in  the  preceding  consulship,  but  our  statement  is 
taken  from  Livy. 

So  also,  according  to  Livy,  six  consulships  before  that  of 
Fulvius  Ptetinus  and  Manlius  Torquatus,  or  in  the  consulship 
of  Arvina  and  Tremulus,  in  the  reputed  year  B.C.  305,  M. 
Valerius  Maximus  and  C.  Junius  Bubulcus  were  censors  ;  ^  but 
it  is  not  said  that  the  lustrum  was  celebrated.  The  lustrum, 
however,  is  no  sure  test.  Its  celebration,  for  some  reason  or 
other,  was  frequently  omitted.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  the  year 
of  Eome  294,  though  the  census  was  taken,  the  lustrum  was  not 
celebrated,  from  religious  scruples,  because  the  Capitol  had  been 
taken  and  one  of  the  consuls  killed.^  Tliis  census,  which 
was  not  completed  till  the  following  year  by  the  celebration 
of  the  lustrum,  is  said  by  Livy  to  have  been  only  the  tenth ;  ^ 
though  in  due  order  more  than  twenty  should  have  been  cele- 
brated. And  from  the  first  lustrum,  celebrated  by  Servius 
Tullius,  and  the  last,  celebrated  by  Vespasian  in  A.u.c.  827, 
a  period  of  about  six  centuries  and  a  half,  there  had  been  only 
seventy-five  lustra,"^  giving  an  average  inter\^al  of  between 
eight  and  nine  years  between  them.  But  it  may  be  assumed 
that  censors  were  appointed  every  five  years — or,  in  the  early 
times  of  the  republic,  in  every  sixth  consulate — as  the  duties 
of  their  office,  such  as  fixing  the  taxes,  &c.,  could  not  well  be 
postponed. 

In  the  period  between  B.C.  305  and  299,  we  find,  indeed, 
another  pair  of  censors  recorded  by  Livy ;  viz.  Q.  Fabius  and 
P.  Decius,  in  the  consulsliip  of  Sulpicius  Saverrio  and  Sem- 
"pronius  Sophus,  in  B.C.  303  :^  but  these  were  created  not  for 
taking  the  census,  but  for  an  extraordinary  occasion, — the 
creation,  namely,  of  some  new  tribes,  in  order  to  put  an  end 
to  forensic  tumults.  At  this  period,  by  the  Lex  Emilia,  the 
duration  of  the  censorship  was  limited  to  eighteen  months. 
The  censorship  of  Valerius  Maximus  and  Junius  Bubulcus 
would  therefore  have  expired;  and  unless  these  extra  censors. 

^  Liv.  ix.  43.  2  ij.  iii,  22.  3  iijij^  24. 

*  Censoriii.  De  Die  Natal,  c.  18:  cf.  Ideler,  Handb.  der  Chroiiologie,  ii.  79,  f. 

s  Liv.  ix.  46. 


n^. 


i:t 


had  been  appointed,  the  forensic  disturbances  must  have  con- 
tinued three  or  four  years  longer,  till  in  the  regular  course  the 
censors  of  B.C.  299  were  appointed. 

It  is  not  easy  to  trace  the  censorship  backwards  in  Livy 
beyond  the  year  B.C.  305.  He  mentions  the  celebrated 
censorship  of  Appius  Claudius  Coecus,  but  with  an  interval  of 
only  five  consulships,  instead  of  six,  reaching  backwards  from 
B.C.  305.  The  Fasti,  however,  give  a  year  in  this  period — 
B.C.  309 — in  which  there  were  no  consuls,  but  only  a  dictator ; 
and  thus  we  are  again  brought  to  a  term  of  six  (civil)  years. 
But  the  strongest  proof  that  Livy  considered  the  censorship 
as  recurring  in  early  times  every  sixth  consulate,  is  the  follow- 
ing passage  in  the  last  chapter  of  his  tenth  book  : — "  Lustrum 
conditum  eo  anno  est  (B.C.  293)  a  P.  Cornelio  Arvina,  C.  Marcio 
Rutilo  censoribus :  censa  capitum  millia  ducenta  sexaginta  duo 
trecenta  viginti  duo.  Censores  vicesimi  sexti  a  primis  censori- 
bus ;  lustrum  undevicesimum  fuit."  We  here  have  another 
example  that  the  lustrum  did  not  keep  pace  with  the  censor- 
ship. But  if  these  were  the  twenty-sixth  censors — that  is, 
bond  fide  censors  for  taking  the  census,  without  reckoning 
those  appointed  for  extraordinary  occasions — then,  as  the  first 
censors  were  created  in  B.C.  443,  there  were  twenty-five 
censors — for  we  must  strike  off  either  the  first  or  last — in 
the  period  between  443  and  293,  which  amounts  to  150  years. 
And  150  divided  by  25  gives  a  quotient  of  six  years  for  the 
regular  recurrence  of  the  censorship. 

We  may  conclude  then  that,  in  Livy's  view,  down  to  the 
year  of  liome  459,  B.C.  293,  six  consulships  only  equalled  five 
years.  In  the  remaining  portion  of  his  work  the  censorships 
follow  at  an  interval  of  five  years ;  but  as  the  second  decade 
is  lost,  we  cannot  precisely  tell  when  this  change  was  effected, 
and  the  duration  of  the  consulship  extended  to  twelve  months. 
It  seems  probable,  however,  that  it  was  made  at,  or  soon  after, 
the  close  of  the  first  decade,  in  the  before-mentioned  year  B.C. 
293.  Our  reasons  for  this  opinion,  or  rather  we  should  say 
for  this  conjecture,  are,  that  Livy's  recapitulation  of  the 
years  of  the  preceding  censorships  at  this  juncture  seems  to 
denote  that  it  was  the  beginning  of  another  system.     And  it 


ex  XX 


INTEKNAL   EVIDENCE. 


A   NEW   CIIKONOLOGICAL   TIIEOJfY. 


CXXXl 


is  remarkable  that  L.  Papirius  Cursor,  who  was  one  of  the 
consuls  in  B.C.  293,  set  up  the  first  sundial  that  had  been  seen 
at  liome.^  As  it  had  not  been  constructed  for  the  latitude  of 
Home,  and  therefore  did  not  show  the  time  correctly,  it  can 
only  be  regarded  as  a  sort  of  monument,  which  miglit  appro- 
priately commemorate  the  change  from  the  civil  to  the  solar 
year.  The  place  in  which  it  was  erected,  before  the  Temph^ 
of  Quirinus,  or  Eomulus,  the  introducer  of  the  civil  year, 
seems  to  be  not  without  significance.  It  may  also  be  remem- 
bered that,  only  a  few  years  before,  the  scribe  C.  Flavins,  by 
publishing  the  calendar  which  he  had  surreptitiously  obtained, 
had  robbed  the  priests  of  their  secret  of  the  Fasti,  and  had 
thus  deprived  them  of  any  interest  which  they  might  have 
had  in  opposing  a  change  of  style. 

That  Livy  did  not  adopt  the  ordinaiy  Roman  chronology, 
founded  on  a  comparison  with  that  of  Greece,  may,  we  think, 
also  be  shown  by  other  circumstances.  First  of  all  we  may 
remark  that  he  takes  no  notice  of  the  Olympiads,  like  Polybius 
and  Dionysius,  and  even  Cicero,  as  a  means  for  fixing  the 
early  Eoman  chronology.  Again,  in  the  few  synchronisms 
which  occur  at  an  early  period  between  Greek  and  Eoman 
history,  his  statements  appear  to  show  that  he  adopted  a  nnicli 
lower  era  than  the  common  one,  which  can  be  explained  only 
on  the  supposition  that  he  deducted  one-sixth  part  from  the 
years  before  A.u.c.  459  or  B.C.  293.  To  illustrate  this  we 
subjoin  a  comparative  table  of  the  received  chronology  and 
one  reduced  in  this  proportion.  The  first  column  contains  the 
visual  chronology,  the  second  the  reduced  : — 

Rome  founded B.C.  753 


»» 


)» 


Accession  of  Nunia      .... 
Tulliis  Hostilius    . 
Ancus  Marcius 
,,  Tar<iuinius  Priscus 

,,  Servins  TuUiiis 

,,  Taiquinius  Superbus 

Expulsion  of  the  kings     .     .     . 
Rome  ca])tured  ])y  the  Gauls 
End  of  Livy's  first  decade     . 


753 

676 

71t) 

646 

673 

610 

640 

582 

616 

562 

578 

531 

534 

494 

510 

474 

3i)0 

37i 

•2S«3 

293 

si 


1  Pliny,  II.  N.  vii.  60. 


We  will  compare  with  this  table  a  few  reputed  synchronisms. 

Cicero  says  that  Pythagoras  came  into  Italy  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Tarquin  the  Proud,  and  that  he  was  there  in  the  time 
of  Junius  Brutus.^  His  arrival  in  Italy,  and  the  commence- 
ment of  the  reign  of  Tarquinius,  occurred,  he  says,  in  the  same 
Olympiad,  the  62d  ;  according  to  which  computation  Tarquin 
began  to  reign  in  B.C.  532,  which  agrees  with  Cato's  era,  and 
Pythagoras  came  into  Italy  in  B.C.  529.  Now  this  accords 
with  all  the  accounts  of  his  life.  Thus,  according  to  Aris- 
toxenus,2  Pythagoras  quitted  Samos  in  the  reign  of  Polycrates, 
at  the  age  of  forty ;  which,  as  he  is  supposed  to  have  been 
born  in  B.C.  570,  would  have  been  in  the  year  B.C.  530; 
and  he  miglit  therefore  have  very  well  arrived  in  Italy  in 
the  following  year.  This  account  also  tallies  with  the  chrono- 
logy of  Polycrates,  who  reigned  in  Samos  from  B.C.  532  to 
B.C.  522;  and  consequently  Pythagoras  must  have  quitted 
that  island  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign.  The  variations 
respecting  the  date  of  Pythagoras'  birth  do  not  affect  the 
question.  According  to  some  authorities  he  was  born  iu 
B.C.  608  or  G05 ;  which  dates  are  adopted  by  Bentley  and 
Larch er,  while  Dodwell  prefers  that  of  B.C.  570.  But  all  testi- 
monies make  him  contemporary  with  Polycrates.  Of  the 
dates  of  his  birth  the  latter  seems  tlie  more  probable  one,  as 
according  to  the  other  he  would  have  been  ninety-six  years 
old  at  the  expulsion  of  Tarquin,  and  ninety-eight  when  he 
is  said  to  have  urged  the  Crotoniates  to  a  war  with  Sybaris, 
in  B.C.  510  ! 

These  variations,  however,  are  of  no  consequence,  as  there 
is  no  difference  of  opinion  about  the  date  of  his  arrival  in 
Italy.  But  while  Cicero  places  it  in  the  fourth  year  of  Tar- 
quinius Superbus,  Livy*  assigns  it  to  the  reign  of  Servius 
Tullius.  Now,  according  to  the  ordinary  chronology,  Servius 
died  in  B.C.  534,  or  five  years  before  Pythagoras'  arrival. 
Livy  must  therefore  have  adopted  a  difterent  mode  of 
computation  ;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  by  the  reduced  table 

J  De  Pep.  ii.  15  ;  Tusc.  i.  16,  iv.  1  :  cf.  A.  Gell.  N.  A.  xvii.  41. 

"  Porphyr.  Vit.  Pyth.  c.  9. 

'See  Clinton,  Fasti  llcllcn.  •*  Jjb.  i,  jg. 


CXXXll 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


RECAPITULATION. 


CXXXlll 


the  year  B.C.  529  woiild  have  been  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  Servins.  Livj  adds  that  Pythagoras  arrived  more 
than  a  hundred  years  after  Numa — ''centum  amplius  post 
annos ; "  that  is,  of  course,  after  the  time  when  Numa  couhl 
have  been  his  pupil,  before  he  became  king  of  Eome.  But, 
according  to  the  ordinary  chronology,  it  would  have  been 
187  years,  for  which  term  such  an  expression  w^ould  be 
absurd.  And  even  from  the  death  of  Xuma  it  would  have 
been  144  years,  too  long  a  period  to  be  so  described.  By 
the  reduced  computation  it  would  have  been  117  years  from 
ISTuma  s  accession  to  B.C.  529,  w^hich  agrees  with  Livy's  mode 
of  speaking. 

Take  another  instance.  Livy^  places  the  first  invasion  of 
Italy  by  the  Gauls  in  the  reign  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  at  the 
time  when  the  Phoc?eans  were  founding  JNIassalia.  'Now, 
as  we  have  shown  in  the  body  of  the  work,'^  Massalia  was 
founded  a  few  years  after  B.C.  546.  But,  according  to  the 
common  chronology,  Tarquin  the  Elder  died  in  B.C.  578.  AVe 
must,  therefore,  resort  to  the  reduced  chronology,  which  shows 
his  reign  to  have  lasted  from  B.C.  562  to  531 ;  and  the  founda- 
tion of  Massalia  would  then  have  occurred  about  the  middle 
of  it. 

Could  any  undoubted  synchronisms  be  shown  between  the 
early  Eoman  history  and  the  Greek,  in  which  the  received 
Eoman  chronology  tallied  with  the  Olympiads  asvsumed  to  cor- 
respond with  it,  there  would  of  course  be  an  end  to  the  ques- 
tion ;  but,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  none  such  are  to  be  found. 
The  marking  of  the  Olympiads  in  Polybius  and  Dionysius  is 
obtained  empirically,  by  assuming  that  the  Ptoman  year,  or 
consulate,  always  consisted  of  twelve  months,  and  then  placing 
the  two  chronologies  in  co-ordination:  thus  Dionysius,  in  a 
passage  to  which  we  have  before  adverted,^  endeavours  to 
make  out  a  synchronism  between  the  consulship  of  Geganius 
and  Minucius  in  B.C.  492,  when  envoys  were  despatched  into 
Sicily  to  buy  corn,  and  the  reign  of  Gelon  at  Syracuse.  But 
we  have  shown  that  this  pretended  synchronism  is  a  mere 
invention  of  that  author.     The  year  B.C.  492  would,  in  tlie 

*  Lib.  V.  34.  2  See  }>.  33,  seq.  ^  See  above,  p.  Ixxvi. 


reduced  chronology,  be  B.C.  459,  and  thus  fall  in  the  period 
when  the  chief  man  in  Sicily  was  Ducetius,  whose  reign 
was  in  B.C.  466-440  ;  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  some 
of  the  Eoman  annalists  may  have  confounded  his  name  with 
that  of  Dionysius  of  Syracuse.  But  at  all  events  the  error 
was  not  adopted  by  Livy,  nor  can  Dionysius'  amendment  of 
it  be  accepted. 

But  if  the  early  Eoman  year  was  one  of  ten  months,  then 
the  duration  of  the  regal  period  would  have  to  be  reduced 
by  one  sixth,  thus  making  it  only  20:3  years,  a  period  often 
equalled  in  the  reigns  of  seven  consecutive  sovereigns.  And 
thus  one  of  the  tritest  objections  to  the  early  history  would 
be  removed. 

To  recapitulate.— As  the  art  of  writing  appears  to  have 
been  practised  at  Eome  in  tlie  very  earliest  times,  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  the  testimony  of  the  best  ancient  writers  that 
public  records  had  been  kept  almost  from  the  foundation  of 
the  city ;  especially  as  such  a  practice  accords  with  that  love 
of  precedent,  as  w^ell  as  of  national  glory,  which  is  admitted 
to  be  a  characteristic  of  the  Eonians.  And  although  a  con- 
siderable part  of  these  records  may  have  perished  in  the 
Gallic  conflagration,  yet  the  fact  of  their  existence  down  to 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  of  Eome  sliows  that  its 
history  during  that  period  did  not  rest  on  oral  tradition :  it 
might,  therefore,  have  been  easily  reconstructed  after  tliat 
catastrophe— or  at  all  events  its  leading  facts — from  memory, 
aided  by  such  documents  as  had  escaped  the  fire.  To  suppose 
that  it  was  not  so  reconstructed  and  preserved  is  not  only  at 
variance  with  the  character  of  tlie  Eomans,  as  shown  by  the 
preceding  records,  and  as  painted  by  the  sceptical  critics 
themselves,  but  also  with  the  fact  that  enough  must  have 
remained  to  substantiate  the  leading  events,  and  with  the 
evidence  we  possess  of  tlie  pains  taken  to  recover  what  laws 
and  treaties  had  been  destroyed. 

Further :  if  we  deny  the  preservation  of  any  public  or 
private  records,  then  there  remains  no  probable  method  by 
which  we  can  account  for  the  existence  of  the  early  history. 
The  first  literarij  annals  of  Fabius,  Cato,  and  the  rest,  could 


^x. 


ex XX IV 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


not  have  been  founded  on  oral  tradition,  whicli  would  have 
been  totally  incompetent  to  hand  down  such  a  mass  of  details, 
often  of  the  most  prosaic  nature.  That  they  were  the  pro- 
duct of  forgery  or  invention  is  still  more  improbable.  The 
high  character  of  these  early  writers,  who  were  not  needy 
litterateurs,  but  men  of  distinction;  the  minor  differences 
sometimes  found  in  their  narratives,  yet  the  general  resem- 
blance of  them  on  the  wdiole,  showing  that  they  drew  inde- 
pendently from  sources  of  recognised  authority;  and  the 
check  that  must  always  have  been  upon  them  from  the 
jealousy  of  the  great  patrician  houses,  could  not  but  have 
insured  their  accounts  from  any  flagrant  perversions  of  his- 
torical truth.  The  methods  which  have  been  invented  in 
order  to  account  for  the  existence  of  the  history  are  not  only 
destitute  of  all  evidence,  but  also  inadequate  and  improbable. 
Niebuhr's  theory  of  a  poetical  origin  is  unauthenticated,  im- 
probable, and  in  great  part  abandoned  by  the  author  himself. 
The  ^etiological  hypothesis  is  also  a  mere  invention,  and 
altogether  inadequate  to  account  for  the  far  greater  portion 
of  the  history,  which  no  ingenuity  can  torture  into  an 
^etiological  origin. 

To  conclude :  the  objections  which  have  been  urged  against 
the  history  on  the  ground  of  its  internal  improbability  are 
altogether  insufficient  to  invalidate  its  origin  from  contem- 
porary record.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  supernatural 
accounts  which  it  contains  is  futile,  since  similar  accounts  are 
found  in  much  later,  and  unquestionably  authentic,  history. 
Their  greater  frequency  in  the  early  ]3eriod  confirms,  instead 
of  invalidating,  its  authenticity,  as  showing  it  to  have  been 
written  in  the  superstitious  and  comparatively  illiterate  times 
which  it  records.  Its  alleged  contradictions  are  chiefly  the 
result  of  the  paucity  of  materials,  of  their  partial  destruction, 
of  our  own  ignorance,  as  well  as  the  ignorance  and  want  of 
judgment  of  Dionysius  and  Plutarch ;  but,  after  all,  these 
contradictions  have  been  much  exaggerated,  and  are  not  of 
a  nature  to  obliterate  the  general  historical  picture.  Lastly  ^ 
the  arguments  adduced  against  the  history  from  chronology 
are  also  often  the  result  onlv  of  our  own  ignorance,  or  are 


IIECAPITL'J.ATION.  CXXXV 

founded  on  the  mistranshitions,  niisappreliensions,  and  whim- 
sical fancies  of  the  sceptical  critics  themselves.  But  though 
this  part  of  the  history  is  undoubtedly  the  weakest,  yet'^it 
IS  not  of  a  nature  to  invalidate  the  whole  narrative,  nor  to 
leave  us  without  hopes  that  by  careful  investigation  we  may 
ultimately  succeed  in  clearing  it  up. 


'*Bfi    ■'^ 


.1--V     h 


"g; 


V.I:-  • 


•'i 


'5l 


THE 


HISTORY  OF  THE   KINGS  OF  ROME. 


SECTION  I. 

THE   EARLY   POPULATION   OF   ITALY. 

To  determine  how  Italy  was  first  peopled  seems  a  liopeless 
task.  Of  the  first  immigration  into  that  peninsula  there  is 
not,  as  Dr.  Mommsen  has  observed,  even  a  legend.  All  that 
can  be  said  upon  the  subject  must  consequently  rest  upon 
inference  and  conjecture,  and  we  shall  therefore  content  our- 
selves with  a  brief  outline  of  some  of  the  theories  respect- 
ing it. 

That  Italy  was  peopled  at  a  comparatively  late  period 
seems  highly  probable.  No  vestiges,  it  is  said,  are  found 
there,  as  in  Germany,  France,  England,  and  Scandinavia,  of  a 
savage  race  that  subsisted  by  hunting  and  fishing,  that  knew 
not  the  art  of  working  metals,  and  used  implements  of  flint 
and  bone.  The  geographical  features  of  the  Italian  peninsula 
might  lead  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  Surrounded  on  three 
sides  by  the  sea,  on  the  fourth  by  almost  impassable  mountains, 
Italy  must  in  a  barbarous  age  have  been  excluded  from  all 
commerce  with  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  wandering  tribes 
that  first  overspread  and  peopled  Europe,  knowing  not  what 
they  might  find  on  the  southern  side  of  the  Alps,  would 
hardly  have  been  tempted  to  encounter  the  difficulties  and 
dangers  of  surmounting  that  stupendous  barrier  rather  than 
direct  their  onward  course  over  the  plains  of  Germany  and 
France. 

B 


2  HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 

One  tiling  seems  tolerably  certain — that  the  great  bulk  of 
the  early  Italian  population  belonged  to  a  race  allied  to  the 
Greek.  Niebuhr  held  this  race  to  have  been  Pelasgians,  who 
once,  he  thought,  occupied  the  peninsulas  both  of  Greece  and 
Italy,  till  they  were  overwhelmed  by  the  incursions  of  other 
tribes,  and  left  behind  them  only  partial  traces  of  their  exist- 
ence ;  just  as  the  physical  features  of  a  country  are  over- 
whelmed by  a  deluge,  except  a  few  hill-tops,  which  here  and 
there  lift  themselves  above  it.  But  this  theory  is  now  ex- 
ploded. Schwegler  has  refuted  it  with  regard  to  Italy,'  and 
Dr.  Mommsen,  one  of  the  latest  historians  of  Eome,  does  not 
once  mention  the  name  of  the  Pelasgians. 

The  last-named  writer,  to  whom  we  thus  advert  par  excel- 
lence^-iov  Niebuhr's  star  is  setting,  and  that  of  Mommsen  is 
in  the  ascendant,  with  the  last  new  version  of  Teutonic- 
Eoman  history — is  nevertheless  of  opinion  that  Italy  was 
first  peopled  by  a  Greek  race,  and  that  they  entered  the 
peninsula  by  crossing  the  Alps.  At  the  period  of  their 
immigration  they  had,  he  thinks,  arrived  at  that  stage  of 
civilization  which  is  implied  in  the  practice  of  agriculture  ; 
an  opinion  formed  on  certain  analogies  in  the  Greek  and 
Latin  languages.  But,  generally  speaking,  an  agricultural 
people  ceases  to  wander.  Its  next  stage  is  to  found  large  and 
opulent  cities,  and  if  these  are  near  the  sea,  to  enter  upon  a 
commercial  life.  As  the  Greeks  were  pre-eminently  a  mari- 
time people,  it  seems  much  more  likely  that  whatever  Hellenic 
elements  may  be  discovered  in  Italy  were  introduced  by  sea, 
and  that  the  population  which  entered  by  the  Alps  were  of 
the  Celtic  stock ;  of  whose  language  traces  have  been  pointed 
out  in  the  Italian  dialects  by  modern  inquirers. 

The  balance  of  probability  whether  Italy  was  peopled 
entirely  by  immigrants  who  crossed  the  Alps,  or  partly  also 
by  sea,  must  in  a  great  measure  depend  on  the  antiquity  of 
navigation.  That  the  Greeks  were  capable  of  making  long 
voyages  at  least  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  siege  of  Troy,  is 
attested  by  the  account  of  Ulysses  having  sailed  to  that  city 
from  Ithaca,  and  of  his  long  wanderings  over  the  sea  after  its 

1  Romische  Geschichte,  Buch  iii.  §  4. 


EARLY   POPULATION   OF   ITALY. 


3 


fall.  It  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  to  object  that  these  are 
mere  poetical  legends.  We  do  not  here  cite  them  as  historical 
facts,  though  we  believe  them  to  be  founded  on  real  occur- 
rences. We  aUude  to  them  here  merely  to  show  that  a  poet 
who  lived  a  great  many  centuries  before  the  Christian  era, 
believed  such  voyages  to  be  possible  twelve  centuries  l)efore 
that  era.  On  the  other  hand.  Dr.  Mommsen  argues*  that  Italy 
must  have  been  totally  unknown  to  the  Hellenes  in  Homer's 
time,  because  he  does  not  once  mention  its  name.  But  to 
prove  this  point,  a  negative  suffices  not.  An  expedition  of 
the  Greeks  towards  the  east  called  not  for  any  mention  of 
Italy ;  while,  if  we  allow  Homer  to  have  been  the  author 
of  the  Odyssey,  he  appears  to  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
still  more  distant  Sicily,  which  he  speaks  of  under  the  name 
of  Thrinakia,^  The  Siculi  are  several  times  mentioned  in  the 
same  poem;^  and  Strabo  is  of  opinion'*  that,  under  this  name, 
he  may  allude  to  the  people  who  inhabited  the  extremities  of 
Italy.  Such  a  people  were  at  all  events  entirely  unknown  in 
Greece.  The  name  of  Epirus,  which  signifies  the  "  mainland," 
in  contradistinction  to  the  islands  which  lie  off  it,  appears  in 
the  Iliad.^  But  to  suppose  that  a  seafaring  people,  acquainted 
with  Epirus,  should  not  have  also  known  the  coast  of  Italy, 
which  is  only  about  foi-ty  miles  distant,  is  utterly  incredible. 

Dr.  Mommsen's  opinion  on  this  subject  is  altogether  in- 
comprehensible and  self-contradictory.  In  fact,  he  confutes 
himself  out  of  his  own  mouth.  At  the  beginning  of  his  tenth 
chapter  he  tells  us  that,  at  the  time  when  the  Homeric  songs 
were  composed,  the  Greeks  had  no  certain  knowledge  of  Italy 
and  Sicily,  though  they  might  have  heard  of  their  existence 
from  some  storm-tossed  mariner.  But  at  the  time  when 
Hesiod's  Theogony  was  composed,  they  knew,  he  says,  the 
whole  Italian  coast,  and  not  long  afterwards  they  may  have 
begun  to  make  settlements  upon  it. 

The  different  theories  respecting  the  period  when  Homer 
flourished  embrace  a  period  of  no  fewer  than  five  centuries, 
and  Dr.  Mommsen  tells  us  not  what  date  he  selects.     We 


1  Rom.  Gesch,  B.  i.  Kap.  2. 

*  Odyss.  XX.  38a;  xxiv.  211»  &c. 


2  Odyss.  xii.  127. 
*  Lib.  i.  c.l,  §  10.  »  ii.  635. 


b2 


F 


TTISTOEY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


will,  however,  assume  that  he  takes  the  earliest,  according  to 
which  Homer  flourished  within  a  century  after  the  Trojan 
war,  or  towards  the  end  of  the  eleventh  centur}^  before  the 
Christian  era.      There  is  also  a  difference  of  more  than  a 
century  in  the  computations  of  Hesiod's  date ;  but  here  also 
we  will  take  the  highest  calculation,  which  places  him  in  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century  B.C.     Now,  on  Dr.  Mommsen^s 
own  showing,  the  Italian  coast   must  not  only  have   been 
known  to,  but  even  colonized  by  the  Greeks  long  before  this 
period.     For  Sybaris  was,  as  he  rightly  tells  us,  founded  in 
Olympiad  xiv.  2,  or  B.C.  723  ;  and  in  the  same  paragraph  he 
further  tells  us,  also  in  all  probability  correctly,  that  Cumae 
was  founded  three  centuries  before  Sybaris  ;^  which  would  be 
B.C.  1023,  or  nearly  two  hundred  years  before  the  time  of 
Hesiod,  at  the  very  least,  and  within  about  half  a  century 
of  the  very  highest  date  assigned  to  Homer,  who  is  said  to 
have  been  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  Italy  !     It  matters  not 
whether  the  Cumgean  Greeks  were,  as  Dr.  Mommsen  says, 
merchants,  and  the  Sybarite  Greeks  agriculturists ;  though  it 
is  probable  that  the  Greeks  had  sailed  to,  and  traded  with, 
Italy,  long  before  they  began  to  settle  there. 
y^     When  it  is  considered  that  the  Phoenicians  were  a  great 
maritime  and  commercial  nation  many  centuries  before  the 
reputed  era  of  the  Trojan  war,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a 
clever  and  enterprising  people  like  the  Greeks  should  not 
have  acquired  from  them  the  art  of  navigation  long  before  that 
famous  siege.     Herodotus,  who  lived  in  the  fifth  century  B.C., 
and  who  may  therefore  be  supposed  to  have  been  a  better 
judge  of  the  capabilities  of  ancient  navigation  than  we  can 
possibly  pretend  to  be  at  this  day,  tells  us  ^  that  a  crew  of 
Cretans — in  whose  island  there  are  traces  of  Phoenician  set- 
tlements— were,  on  their  return  from  Sicily,  driven  by  stress 
of  weather  on  the  coast  of  lapygia,  the  Roman  Calabria,  and 

^  "Kyme  dreihundert  Jahr  alter  ist  als  Sybaris"  .  .  .  "Die  Griindung 
von  Sybaris  fiillt  01.  14,  2,  oder  23  der  Stadt,"  s.  89.  We  perceive  that, 
in  the  English  translation,  the  text  is  much  altered  here  ;  and,  instead  of  the 
first  sentence,  we  find  only,  "  There  is  a  further  credible  tradition  that  a 
considerable  interval  elapsed  between  the  settlement  at  Cumae  and  the  main 
Hellenic  emigration." — Vol.  i.  p.  140.  ^  \-^\^   yjj^  ^    yj^ 


MARITIME   COLONIZATION   OF   ITALY.  5 

there  established  themselves.  This  happened  in  the  reign  of 
Minos,  king  of  Crete ;  that  is,  in  the  mythical  period  before 
the  Trojan  war.  Having  no  means  of  returning  to  their  own 
country,  they  built,  where  fortune  had  cast  them,  the  town  of 
Hyria;  thus  becoming,  says  Herodotus,  lapygian  Messapians 
instead  of  Cretans.  Whether  this  story  be  an  historical  fact 
or  not,  it  at  least  exhibits  the  opinion  of  a  very  ancient  and 
very  inquisitive  historian  as  to  the  antiquity  oi  Greek  navi- 
gation, and  of  Greek  settlements  on  the  Italian  coast. 

The  lapygians,  or  Messapians,  settled  in  this  south-eastern- 
most peninsula,  or  "heel,"  of  Italy,  Dr.  Mommsen  considers 
to  have  been  the  primitive  inhabitants,  or  reputed  autochthons, 
of  the  country ;  the  main  reason  for  that  opinion  appearing  to 
be  that  though  they  had  come  in  over  the  Alps,  they  had,  as 
usually  happened,  been  thrust  down  to  this  extremity  of  the 
land  by  constantly  succeeding  swarms  of  new  immigi'ants. 
The  only  remains  by  which  their  ethnology  can  be  traced  are 
a  few  inscriptions  in  a  Greek  character,  and  bearing  apparently 
some  analogy  to  the  Greek  language;  but  they  have  never 
been  deciphered  and,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Mommsen, 
never  will  be.  The  names  of  certain  Greek  divinities,  apre/xe?, 
Sa/marpLa,  airpohtTa — that  is,  Artemis,  Demeter,  Aphrodite^ — 
show,  we  think  indubitably,  that  the  authors  of  the  inscrip- 
tions must  have  been  of  an  Hellenic  race ;  but  who  shall  tell 
us  whether  they  were  the  original,  or  autochthonic  inhabitants, 
or  immigrant  Greeks,  such  as  the  Cretans  mentioned  by 
Herodotus,  speaking  a  very  primitive  Hellenic  dialect,  cor- 
rupted perhaps  by  intercourse  with  barbarians  ?  so  that  the 
Messapians  were  universally  regarded  by  the  later  Greeks  as 
a  barbarous  people. 

Besides  the  accidental  visits  and  settlements  of  the  more 
southern  and  maritime  Greeks,  such  as  that  just  alluded  to, 
we  think  it  highly  probable  that  southern  Italy  may  also  have 
been  partly  colonized  at  a  very  early  period  by  immigrants 
from  Epirus  and  the  western  coasts  of  Greece.  It  is  true 
that  we  have  no  historical  record,  or  even  tradition,  of  any 
early  contact  between  Greeks  and  Italiots  at  this  point ;  and, 

1  Mommsen,  Die  Unteritalische  Dialektc,  p.  84. 


w^ 


6  HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 

considering  the  state  of  our  knowledge  respecting  the  early 
history  of  Italy,  it  would  be  surprising  if  we  had.  But  when 
the  same  names  of  places  and  tribes  are  found  in  two  coun- 
tries, there  is  room,  at  all  events,  for  a  very  strong  presump- 
tion that  one  of  them  was  peopled  from  the  other.  It  can 
hardly  be  accidental  that  we  should  find  in  both  countries  a 
race  called  Chaones,  or  Chones,  a  town  called  Pandosia,  and  a 
river  called  Acheron.  And  if  these  names  afford  evidence  of 
a  connexion  between  the  two  lands,  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  it  could  have  been  established  in  any  other  way  than  by 

the  sea. 

At  the  same  time  we  are  willing  to  allow  that  in  ancient 
times  there  was  not  probably  much  intercourse  between  Greece 
and  Italy  across  the  Adriatic.     The  Epirots  were  a  pastoral 
race,  not  much  addicted  to  the  sea  ;  though,  with  the  length 
of  coast  which  they  possessed,  it  would  be  strange  if  they  did 
not  sometimes  venture  upon  it,  and  even  a  fishing-boat  might 
come  within  sight  of  Italy.     The  seafaring  Greeks,  however, 
capable  of  making  what  in  those  days  were  considered  long 
voyages,   dwelt  in  the  Peloponnesus,  in  the  islands  of  the 
Archipelago,  on  the  eastern  coasts  of  Greece,  and  on  the 
shores  of  Asia  Minor.     Hence  it  is  easy  to  see  that  no  Greek 
navigators,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  those  dwelling  on 
the  western  coast  of  Peloponnesus,  and  especially  the  Corin- 
thians, would,  in  steering  westward  for  Italy,  have  anything 
to  do  with  the  Adriatic.     On  such  a  course,  a  vessel  from  any 
part  of  Greece  eastward  of  Cape  Tsenarum  (now  Cape  Ma- 
tapan),  would  have  to  doable  that  promontory,  and  would 
thus  find  itself  considerably  to  the  south  of  Cape  Pacliynus 
(Cape  Passaro),  the   southernmost  point  of  Sicily.     Under 
these  circumstances,  her  course  would  be  across  the  Ionian 
Sea  for  Sicily ;  whence  she  would  reach  the  western  coasts  of 
Italy  either  by  circumnavigating  that  island,  or  what  is  more 
probable,  by  passing  through  the  Straits  of  Messina.     That 
this  was  the  usual  course  of  Greek  navigation,  is  evident  from 
the  situation  of  their  Italian  colonies.    Leaving  lapygia,  or 
Messapia,  and  Venice  out  of  the  question,  there  is  not  a  single 
Greek  colony  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Italy,  except  Ancona  ; 


J-' 


f: 


.v 

•  I* 


VOYAGES   OF  THE   GREEKS.  7 

and  this  we  know  was  settled  by  refugees  from  Sicily  as  late 
as  the  fourth  century  before  the  Christian  era.  In  Sicily,  and 
on  the  southern  and  western  coasts  of  Italy,  the  Greek  colonies 
were  numerous,  while  the  Adriatic  was  but  little  known  to 
and  less  explored  by  the  greater  part  of  that  nation.  The 
Corinthians  alone,  from  their  geographical  position,  their  gulf 
opening  out  not  far  from  the  entrance  of  that  sea,  seem  to 
have  visited  it,  and  to  have  planted  a  few  colonies  on  its 
eastern  shores ;  but  even  they  appear  to  have  abstained,  from 
what  cause  we  cannot  explain,  from  colonizing  the  Italian 
coast  of  the  Adriatic.  Now,  if  such  was  the  usual  course  of 
Greek  navigation  during  the  historical  times,  or,  in  other 
words,  when  the  colonies  of  Magna  Graecia  were  founded, 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  it  should  not  also  have  been 
pursued  at  an  earlier  period,  provided  always  that  the  Greeks 
had  become  sufficiently  skilful  sailors  to  make  so  long  a 
voyage  ;  and  that  they  had  attained  this  skill  in  very  remote 
antiquity  we  have  already  endeavoured  to  show.  Here,  then, 
might  have  been  another  source  of  Italian  population,  and 
the  many  legends  which  we  have  of  Greek  settlements  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Eome  before  that  of  the  people  which 
actually  built  that  city,  seem  to  point  to  such  a  source.  We  are 
also  of  opinion  that  several  of  the  races  which  we  hear  of  in 
southern  Italy,  and  Sicily,  as  the  ^notrii,  Siculi,  I  tali,  &c.,  pro- 
bably Pelasgic  tribes,  might  have  been  introduced  by  sea. 

We  shall  content  ourselves,  however,  with  indicating  the 
possibility  that  some  portion  of  the  early  Italian  population 
might  have  been  so  introduced  without  discussing  at  any 
length  how  Italy  was  peopled.  As  the  main  object  of  the 
present  work  is  to  endeavour  at  ascertaining  what  truth  there 
-may  be  in  the  early  history  of  Eome,  it  will  hardly  be  ex- 
pected that  we  should  enter  into  the  still  more  obscure 
question  of  Italian  ethnography,  a  subject  upon  which,  the 
more  we  investigate  it,  the  more  incompetent  we  feel  to  pro- 
nounce any  decided  opinion.  If,  as  is  supposed,  there  is  not 
evidence  enough  to  establish  the  history  of  the  first  few  cen- 
turies of  Eome,  of  which  at  all  events  there  profess  to  be 
some  records,  how  should  it  be  possible  to  give  a  satisfactory 


11 


8 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


PHILOLOGY  AND   ETHNOLOGY. 


account  of  a  long  antecedent  period,  of  wliicli  there  are  only 
a  few  traditions,  and  those  of  the  most  divergent  and  contra- 
dictory nature  ?   This  circumstance,  however,  has  not  deteri-ed 
writers  of  Teutonic-Eoman  history   of  the  Niebuhr   school, 
who  profess  to  reconstruct  it  by  a  process  of  "  divination/'  ^ 
from  proposing  the  most  confident  theories,  built,  of  course,  on 
the  vaguest  inductions.     "  When  we  come  to  examine  the 
evidence,"  observes  Sir  George  Cornewall  Lewis,  "  on  which  the 
ethnological  theories  of  the  majority  of  antiquarian  treatises 
are  founded,  our  wonder  at  their  wide,  and  indeed  almost 
unlimited  divergences,  is  at  an  end.     No  probability  is  too 
faint,  no  conjecture  is  too  bold,  no  ethnology  is  too  uncertain 
to  resist  the  credulity  of  an  antiquarian  in  search  of  evidence 
to  support  an  ethnological  hypothesis.     Gods  become  men, 
kino's  become  nations,  one  nation  becomes  another  nation,  oppo- 
sites  are  interchanged  at  a  stroke  of  th^  wand  of  the  historical 
magician.   Centuries  are  to  him  as  minutes ;  nor,  indeed,  is  space 
itself  of  much  account  when  national  affinities  are  in  question."  ^ 
In  the  absence  of  all  records  or  traditions,  the  great  modern 
method  of  comparative  philology  may  undoubtedly  teach  us 
something  respecting  ancient  ethnography.     It  has  been  used 
with  some  success  in  discriminating  the  different  races  which, 
during  the  historical  period,  inhabited  the  Italian  peninsula, 
but  it  has  not  as  yet  made  much  progress  in  demonstrating 
their  immediate  origin.     For  this  purpose  the  method  is  so 
comprehensive  that  it  teaches  little  or  nothing  specific.     It  is 
now,  we  believe,  decided  that  all  the  peoples  of  ancient  Italy, 
including  the  Etruscans,  were  of  what  is  called  the  Indo- 
European  family :  that  is,  they  spoke  languages  the  roots  of 
which  may  be  traced  up  to  the  Sanscrit.     This  description 
contains  witliin  its  comprehensive  boundaries  tongues  now  so 
widely  different  as  the  Greek,  the  Latin,  the  Teutonic,  the 
Erse,  the  Gaelic,  and  several  more.   As  these  nations,  however 
diverse  their  dialects,  had  all  some  words,  fewer  or  greater  in 
number,  which  belonged  to  them  in  common,  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  this  fact  complicates,  instead  of  removing,  the  difficulty 

1  Hist,  of  Rome,  voL  i.  p.  152. 

2  Credibility  of  Early  Roman  History,  vol.  i.  p.  270. 


-■* 


.4»  ' 


■.J*  +- 


-   I-- 


Jd 


■fe 


I 


1  ^ 


of  settling,  from  philological  induction,  the  ethnology  of  the 
early  Italian  races.  There  is,  for  instance,  a  considerable 
similarity  between  the  Latin  and  Greek  languages ;  yet  this 
would  not  justify  us  in  concluding,  as  was  formerly  done,  that 
Latin  and  Greek  stood  in  the  relation  of  mother  and  daughter, 
and  that  one  of  the  races  speaking  those  languages  must  have 
been  immediately  descended  from  the  other.  Eor  if  both 
sprung  in  a  very  remote  age  from  a  common  stock,  what 
words  they  had  in  common  might  be  derived  from  that  stock, 
though  the  Italians  had  never  been  in  Greece,  nor  the  Greeks 
in  Italy.  Both  peoples  might  have  passed  independently  into 
Italy  and  Greece  at  different  and  very  remote  periods,  as  we 
believe  is  now  the  favourite  theory,  carrying  with  them  their 
common  language,  more  or  less  altered  and  modified,  yet  still 
retaining  considerable  resemblance,  although  no  intercourse 
might  have  taken  place  between  them  for  a  score  of  ages. 
Keasoning  in  the  same  manner,  there  would  be  no  conclusive 
grounds  for  assuming  that  a  German  or  a  Celtic  race  had 
settled  in  Italy  at  a  very  early  period  because  the  Latin 
happens  to  have  some  Celtic  and  Teutonic  words.^  Such 
words,  it  may  be  said,  were  their  joint  property,  because  in  a 
very  remote  age  they  all  sprung  from  the  same  stock  ;  and  if 
they  had  not  some  such  common  words,  they  could  not  be 
ranged  under  the  general  category  of  Indo-European.  Thus, 
as  soon  as  we  have  so  ranged  them,  we  have  gone  a  great  way 
towards  rendering  it  impossible  to  trace  the  immediate  origin 
of  specific  races  by  means  of  language. 

The  best  way  of  meeting  this  difficulty,  and  endeavouring 
to  make  philology  yield  some  historical  results,  seems  to  be 
that  of  classing  rather  than  counting  the  words,  which  certain 
nations  may  possess  in  common;  that  is,  to  judge  by  their 
quality  rather  than  their  number.  Dr.  Mommsen  has  adopted 
this  principle  in  his  second  chapter,  where  by  a  comparison 

»  Professor  Newman  contends  (Regal  Rome,  ch.  2),  that  Latin  is  nearer  to 
tlie  Gaelic  and  Celtic  than  either  to  the  Greek  or  German.  Mommsen,  on  the 
other  hand,  says  (Rom.  Gesch.  B.  i.  Kap.  2,  §  14),  that  Greek  and  Latin  are 
nearer  to  each  other  than  either  tongue  is  to  German  or  Celtic,  but  that 
German  is  next  to  them. 


10 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


GREEK   AND   CELTIC   ELEMENTS   OF   LATIN. 


11 


of  certain  classes  of  Greek  and  Latin  words  with  one  another, 
and  with  their  parent  Sanscrit,  he  has  attempted  to  trace  the 
progress  of  those  peoples.     This  method  may,  indeed,  be  liable 
to  some  objections,  and  lead  to  not  a  few  fallacies.     From 
their  long  intercourse  with  the   Greeks,  and  because  their 
literature  was  almost  entirely  modelled  on  the  Grecian,  the 
Eomans  no  doubt  adopted,    at  a  late  period,   many  Greek 
words  into  their  language,  which   could  not  be   originally 
found  there.     There  is  a  great  probability,  too,  as  we  shall 
endeavour  to  show  further  on,  that  Eome  itself  was  a  Greek 
settlement,  which  would  account  for  a  great  many  of  the 
Greek  words  found  in  the  Latin  language.     Hence  in  any 
comparison  of  the  Italian  dialects  with  those  of  Greece  for 
ethnological  purposes,  Latin,  it  seems  to  us,  should  be  omitted, 
and  the  comparison  made  between  Greek  and  the  Umbro- 
SabelHan  dialects.     Waiving,  however,  for  the  moment  these 
objections,  the  results  of  the  process  alluded  to  appear  to  be 
that  when  the  Gr^eco-Italians  separated  from  the  parent  stock 
they  had  arrived  at  nothing  more  than  pastoral  life,  since  the 
words  which  they  possess  in  common  with  the  Sanscrit  do 
not  go  further  than  this  stage  in  the  progress  towards  civiliza- 
tion.    Mommsen  next  supposes  that  after  this  separation,  and 
while  the  Gr^co-Italians  still  continued  to  dwell  together, 
they  arrived  at  the  stage  of  agriculture,  as  he  infers  from  the 
agricultural  words  which  they  had  in  common.     They  have 
also  common  words  for  things  relating  to  domestic  life,  and 
to  some   elementary   principles    of  religion,   but    here   also 
religion   of  the   more   domestic   kind ;    as   for   instance   the 
worship  of  Vesta,  the  goddess  of  the  hearth,  was  known  both 
to  Greeks  and  Italians.     Here  Dr.  Mommsen  stops  short,  for 
further  than  this  a  comparison  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  will 

not  carry  him. 

It  is  obvious,  however,  that  though  the  preceding  inves- 
tigation may  tend  to  show  an  original  community  of  race 
between  the  Greeks  and  Italians,  it  affords  no  insight  what- 
ever into  what,  in  an  historical  point  of  view,  is  much  more 
important— their  political  life.  The  Greek  and  Latin  terms 
for   civil   and  military  affairs  are  for  the  most   part   quite 


1 


•..» 

.^ 


different ;  and  what  is  singular,  the  Latin  bear  a  very  striking 
resemblance  to  the  Gaelic  and  Welsh.  Professor  Newman 
has  collected  some  of  these  words  in  the  work  before  referred 
to,^  from  which  we  extract  a  few  that  have  the  most  striking 
resemblance.  In  military  terms  we  find — Latin,  arma,  G. 
arm  ;  ^  gladius,  G.  claidheamli,  W.  clcddyr  ;  telum,  G.  tailm  / 
galea,  E.  galid  ;  caterva,  W.  catorva ;  sagitta,  G.  saigJiead  ; 
lorica,  G.  luireach  ;  balteus,  G.  halt ;  murus,  W.  mur ;  vallum, 
W.  givaly  G.  fal  and  hallc ;  prgeda,  W.  pi^aidh,  spolia,  G. 
spuill  ;  corona,  G.  W.  coron ;  gloria,  G.  gloir  ;  &c.  In  civil 
affairs  we  have — Latin,  rex,  G.  righ;  populus,  W.  pohl,G.pohull ; 
senatus,  G.  seanadh ;  career,  W.  carchar ;  ordo,  W.  urdh ; 
and  several  more.  Now  as  it  is  natural  that  victors  should 
impose  upon  the  conquered  their  names  for  military  affairs 
and  for  civil  government,  we  might  hence  infer  that  the 
original  Italian  tribes  had  been  subdued  by  Celtic  invaders. 
Dr.  Prichard,  in  his  "  Physical  History  of  Mankind,"  and 
other  modern  writers,  have  maintained  that  the  Umbrians 
were  a  Celtic  race,  and  this  opinion  is  in  some  degree  sujj- 
ported  by  an  obscure  tradition  to  the  same  effect  mentioned 
by  some  of  the  later  Eoman  writers  ;  ^  an  opinion,  however, 
which  philological  researches  into  the  Umbrian  dialect  have 
'not  tended  to  confirm.  On  the  other  hand,  it  might  be  said 
That  the  Celtic  nations  derived  these  words  from  the  Eomans 
during  their  long  struggle  with  and  partial  subjugation  by 
that  people.  This,  however,  does  not  account  for  the  manner 
in  which  the  Eomans  came  by  them ;  and,  besides  the  terms 
of  war  and  politics  before  alluded  to,  there  are  many  others 
relating  to  mere  natural  objects  which  are  common  to  the 
Latin  and  Celtic,  and  not  to  the  Greek,  such  as  the  names  for 
earth,  sea,  mountain,  loind,  storm,  <S^c.  *    "^^ 

But  we  abstain  from  pursuing  any  further  these  general 
observations,  and  will  content  ourselves  with  recording  the 
most  generally  received  results  of  modern  inquiry  with 
regard  to  the  ancient  populations  of  Italy. 

1  Regal  Rome,  cli.  4.      ^  The  letters  G.  W.  E.  stand  for  Gaelic,  Welsh,  Erse. 
3  Solinus,  ii.  §  11  ;  Serv.  ad  M\\.  xii.  753  ;  Isidore,  Orig.  ix.  2. 
"*  See  the  list  in  Newman's  Regal  Rome,  p.  20,  seqq. 


12 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   HOME. 


There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  leaving  aside  the  Ligurians, 
of  whom  little  or  nothing  is  known,  the  Italian  peninsula  was 
for  the  most  part  occupied,  at  the  time  when  Eome  was 
founded,  by  three  races,  distinguished  from  one  another  by 
their  language  ;  namely,  the  lapygians,  or  Messapians,  the 
Etruscans,  and  a  collection  of  tribes  called  Umbro-Sabellian, 
speaking  a  cognate  dialect. 

Of  the  lapygians  we  have  already  spoken.  Eespecting 
the  origin  and  ethnological  affinities  of  the  Etruscans,  little 
or  nothing  can  be  established.  The  remains  of  their  language 
cannot  be  interpreted ;  but  enough  is  known  of  it  to  decide 
that  it  was  entirely  different  from  any  other  Italian  dialect, 
yet  that  the  Etruscans  nevertheless  probably  belonged  to  the 
Indo-European  family.^  As  no  clue  to  the  origin  of  the 
Etruscans  can  be  derived  from  their  language,  so  also  tradi- 
tion is  so  various  that  it  leaves  us  in  an  equal  state  of  un- 
certainty. One  of  the  most  commonly  received  accounts  is, 
or  rather  was,  that  of  Herodotus,^  who  represents  them  to 
have  emigrated,  under  the  pressure  of  famine,  from  Lydia, 
then  called  Maeonia,  into  Italy.  Tursenus,  one  of  the  sons  of 
Atys,  king  of  Mseonia,  was  the  leader  of  this  expedition ;  he 
conducted  half  the  nation  to  Smyrna,  where  they  embarked, 
and  landed  at  last  in  the  country  of  the  Ombrici,  or  Umbrians. 

This  account  seems  to  have  been  almost  universally  received 
among  the  Komans.  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  appears  to 
be  the  only  ancient  author  who  disputed  it ;  but  his  argument 
that  the  Etruscans  could  not  have  been  Lydians,  because  in 
his  time  they  entirely  differed  from  that  people  in  language, 
customs,  and  religion,  is  eminently  absurd.  ^  It  assumes  that 
two  nations  which  must  have  been  separated  from  each  other 
twelve  or  fifteen  centuries,*  and  had  both  undergone  during 
that  long  period  extreme  vicissitudes,  should  have  retained 
unaltered  their  customs  and  their  language.     In  fact,  the 

1  Mommsen,  Rom.  Gescli.  B.  i.  §  81.  ^  Lib.  i.  c.  94. 

3  Ant.  Rom.  i.  30. 

*  The  emigration  mentioned  by  Herodotus  must  have  taken  place  more  than 
twelve  centuries  before  the  Christian  era,  as  the  dynasty  of  Atys  was  previou 
to  that  of  the  Heraclidae. 


M 


■  y  1 


:-ta 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   ETRUSCANS. 


13 


original  emigrants  were  not,  properly  sp€aking,  Lydians,  but 
Maeonians;  and  although  Herodotus  considers  these  two 
peoples  to  have  been  identical,  there  is  good  reason  to  believe, 
as  Niebuhr  has  shown  from  other  ancient  authors,  as  well  as 
from  the  fact  of  their  change  of  name,  that  they  were  distinct 
races,  and  that  the  Maeonians  were  conquered  by  the  Lydians.  ^ 
Subsequently,  Lydia  endured  many  revolutions,  among  which 
was  subjugation  by  the  Persians,  and  by  the  Greeks ;  so  that, 
as  Strabo  tells  us,  2'  the  Lydian  language  had  in  his  time 
entirely  disappeared.  Yet  Dionysius,  who  lived  at  the  same 
time  as  Strabo,  is  still  seeking  it ! '  The  Lydians  in  Italy  must 
in  their  turn  have  endured  equah  vicissitudes.  Nevertheless, 
the  argument  on  which  Dionysius  seems  to  lay  even  more 
stress  than  on  the  dissimilarity  of  their  language  to  that  of 
the  Lydians,  namely,  their  dissimilar  customs,  appears  to  be 
contradicted  by  the  researches  of  modern  inquirers.  ^ 

A  custom  common  to  the  Etruscans  with  the  Lydians  is  so 
singular,  as  well  as  abominable,  that  the  coincidence  could  not 
well  have  been  the  work  of  chance ;  the  custom-,  namely, 
alluded  to  by  Plautus,  ^  of  prostituting  their  daughters  for  the 
sake  of  procuring  them  a  dowry. 

Several  modern  writers,  and  among  them  Dr.  Mommsen, 
have  also  disputed  the  probability  of  the  account  given  by 
Herodotus,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  have  been  impossible 
to  convey  so  numerous  a  people  so  far  across  the  sea.  This 
difficulty,  however,  occuiTed  neither  to  Herodotus  himself, 
nor  to  his  critic  Dionysius,  who,  though  he  disputes  the  story, 
does  not  employ  this  argument  against  it.  These  ancient 
writers  were  better  acquainted  with  early  navigation  than 
their  modern  critics  are.     In  fact,  if  the  Greeks  could  people 

1  Hist,  of  Rome,  vol.  i.  p.  32  :  Leet.  on  Anc.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  87. 

*  Lib.  xiii.  ch.  iv.  17,  p.  631. 

3  He  uses  the  present  tense  :  ovB^  y&p  tVcfi/ots  duSyAuaaol  doiy,  loc.  cit. 
^  *  See  especially  Mr.  Dennis's  Etruria,  vol.  i.  ;  who  points  out  many  similari- 
ties  in  the  customs  of  the  Etruscans  with  those  of  their  reputed  forefathers  in 
Asia  Minor. 

*  "  Non  enim  hie  est  ubi  ex  Tusco  modo 

Tute  tibi  in^igne  dotem  quadras  corpore. " — Cistell    ii   3   20    ' 
Cf.  Herod,  i.  93.  •    »      • 


14 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   ETRUSCANS. 


15 


the  coasts  of  Magna  Gr^ecia  and  Sicily,  wliy  might  not  this 
have  been  performed  in  Etruria  some  centuries  before,  pro- 
vided navigation  had  made  adequate  progress  ?  And  that 
this  was  the  case  at  a  very  early  period  we  have  already 

endeavoured  to  show. 

But  the  Lydian  immigrants  need  not  have  been  so  very 
numerous.  Herodotus,  indeed,  speaks  of  half  the  people ;  but 
in  ancient  times  a  people  was  often  composed  of  a  city  or  a 
tribe.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  they  all  came  m 
one  fleet.  A  few  thousand  immigrants  may  under  favourable 
circumstances  soon  grow  up  into  a  great  nation ;  and  though 
the  Lydians  may  not  at  first  have  formed  any  great  portion 
of  the  people  afterwards  called  Etruscans,  yet,  from  their 
superior  civilisation  they  may  have  succeeded  in  imparting 
many  of  their  customs  and  much  of  their  language  to  the 
more  barbarous  people  among  whom  they  landed,  and  perhaps 

even  their  name. 

It  is  evident  that  other  settlements  had  also  been  made  on 
the  coast  of  Etruria  by  an  Hellenic  race.     Such  were  Pisae, 
Telamon,  Agylla  or  Cc^re,  with  Pyrgi,  its  port,  and  others. 
The  name  of  Pyrgi  (U^pyoL,  the  towers)  of  itself  denotes  its 
Greek  origin;  which  is  further  shown  by  its  containing  a 
temple  to  EUeithyia,  a  purely  Greek  goddess,  who  presided 
over  child-birth.     The  circumstance  that  Caere  had  a  treasury 
at  Delphi,  affords  also  a  strong  presumption  in  favour  of  its 
Grecian  origin.     Telamon  and  Pisse  are  Grecian  names :  the 
Greek  origin  of  the  latter  was  almost  universally  recognized 
in  antiquity ;  Cato,  the  only  author  who  ascribes  to  it  an 
Etruscan  foundation,  admits  at  the  same  time  that  its  site 
had  been  previously  occupied  by  a  people  speaking  a  Greek 
dialect,  i     These  Greek  settlers  appear  to  have  spread  them- 
selves a  considerable  distance  into  the  interior.     Dionysius  of 
Halicarnassus  relates  ^  that  even  in  his  time  vestiges  of  an 
HeUenic  race  might  still  be  traced  in  the  Etruscan  towns  ot 
Falerii  and  Fescennium.     Such  were  their  Argolic  shields 
and  lances  and  other  weapons,  their  religious  rites,  the  method 
in   which   their   temples   were    constructed,   &c.      But    the 

»  Apud  Sei-v.  ad  Mn.  x.  179.  '  Li^-  i-  ^^-  21- 


hi 


II 
I 


strongest  evidence  was  a  temple  at  Falerii  exactly  like  that 
of  Here,  or  Juno,  at  Argos,  in  which  similar  sacred  rites  were 
performed ;  among  which  may  be  more  particularly  distin- 
guished the  basket-bearing  virgin  {Kavrfc^opo^)  who  inaugu- 
rated the  sacrifices,  and  the  chorus  of  girls  who  sung  their 
traditionary  hymns  to  the  goddess.  Livy,  in  relating  the 
treachery  of  the  Faliscan  schoolmaster,  who  offered  to  give 
his  pupils  into  the  hands  of  the  Eomaiis,  remarks  that  it  was 
a  Greek  custom  to  commit  several  boys  to  the  care  of  one 
master.  1  Moreover,  some  Etruscan  words  connected  with 
religion,  as  haruspex  and  hariolus,  are,  as  Mr.  Newman 
observes,  ^  manifest  corruptions  of  the  Greek  UpoaKOTro^  and 
lepev^.  There  were  also  traces  of  the  Argives  at  Eome,  as  we 
shall  see  further  on. 

It  seems  highly  probable  that  the  aid  which  the  early 
Eomans  occasionally  received  from  Etruria,  and  the  Etruscan 
settlements  made  in  that  city,  were  derived  from  the  Grecian 
population  of  Etruria,  and  were  prompted  by  a  community  of 
race.  It  was  probably  also  the  Pelasgic,  or  Hellenic,  portion 
of  the  Etruscan  population  that  became  by  their  piracies  the 
terror  of  the  seas.  Piracy,  as  we  know  from  Thucydides,  was 
a  favourite  pursuit  of  the  more  ancient  Greeks,  and  regarded 
by  them  as  an  honourable  one.  The  great  bulk  of  the 
Etruscans  do  not  seem  to  have  been  a  maritime  people.  At 
all  events,  the  leading  cities  of  the  Etruscan  confederacy  were  , 
inland :  not  one  of  the  twelve  was  seated  on  the  sea. 

But  of  what  was  the  great  bulk  of  the  Etruscan  population 
composed?  Of  the  Umbrians,  whom  the  Lydians  are  said 
to  have  found  there  on  their  arrival  ?  ^  Or  of  a  distinct  race, 
that  called  by  Dionysius  Ehasennce  ?  ^     It  is  evident  that  no 

^  *'Mos  erat  Faliscis,  eodem  magistro  liberorum  et  comite  uti :  simulqiio 
plures  piieri,  quod  hodie  quoque  in  Graecia  manet,  unius  curse  demanda- 
bantur." — Li  v.  v.  27. 

*  Regal  Rome,  p.  109.  Whatever  Tarquin  may  have  done  at  Rome,  it  is 
evident  that  he  could  not  have  introduced  the  religious  usages  above  adverted 
to  at  Falerii. 

3  This  is  the  opinion  of  Lepsius  in  his  "  Tyrrhenische  Pelasger  in  Etrurien  '* 
(8vo.  Leipsic,  1842,  2  Biinde). 

<  Lib.  i.  c.  30. 


16 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


mixture  of  Hellenes  and  Umbrians  could  have  produced  a 
language   totally   unintelligible   to   the   Eomans,  which  has 
defeated  all  the  efforts  of  modern  philologists  to  interpret'tk 
There  must,  therefore,  have  been  a  third  element,  and  the 
question  is  whether  this  was  Lydian  or  Ehasennic?    The 
latter  race,  however — if  indeed  it  be  a  distinct  race  at  all, 
instead  of  only  another  name   for  the  Etruscans — is  known 
only  from  Dionysius,  and  is  mentioned  by  no  other  ancient 
author.     How  they  came  into  Italy,  if  their  existence  as  a 
separate  race  is  to  be  allowed,  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain. 
The  Etruscans  appear  at  one  time  to  have  occupied  the  plains 
of  Lombardy,  where  they  must  have  subdued  the  Umbrians, 
till  they  were  themselves  driven  out  in  turn  by  the  Celts  or 
Gauls,  about  the  time  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  ;  when  part  of 
them  appear  to  have  taken  refuge  in  the  mountains  of  Rhaetia, 
and  the  remainder,  we  may  presume,  proceeded  towards  the 
south.^     Hence  some  modern  writers,  from  the  resemblance 
of  the  names  Rhcetia  and  Rhasennay  have  been  led  to  con- 
clude that  the  Etruscans  entered  Italy  from  the  Alps,  which 
had  been  their  primitive  abode.     But  this  is  quite  at  variance 
with  the  account  of  Livy./  That  historian  tells  us  that,  before 
the  above-mentioned  invasion  of  the  Gauls,  the  Etruscans 
occupied   both   sides    of  the  Apennines,   that   towards   the 
Adriatic,   and  that  towards  the  Tyrrhenian  Sea,  having  in 
each  district  twelve  cities.     The  twelve  original  cities  were 
those  on  the  Eoman  side  of  the  Apennines,  and  the  twelve  on 
the  further,  or  northern  side,  were  colonies  from  these.     The 
latter  occupied  all  the  territory  beyond  the  Po  as  far  as  the 
Alps,  except  the  district  belonging  to  the  Yeneti.     Hence, 
also,  the  origin  of  the  Alpine  races,  especially  the  Rhaetians  ; 
who  became  barbarized  in  these  countries,  retaining  nothing 
of  their  ancient  cultivation  except  their  language,  and  even 
that  corrupted.  ^ 


1  Plin.  H.  N.  iii.  20,  §  24  ;  Justin,  xx.  5. 

2  Liv.  V.  33.  Livy  does  not  explain  whether  the  Etruscans  were  driven 
into  the  Alps,  or  went  there  voluntarily  in  the  progress  of  colonization.  But 
the  latter  supposition  is  quite  improbable,  while  the  fornier  agrees  with  the 
accounts  of  Pliny  and  Justin.     It  may  be  observed  that  Livy's  account  is  at 


ORIGINAL  SEAT  OF  THE  ETRUSCANS. 


17 


Erom  this  account  we  see  that  the  universal  opinion  among 
the  Romans  respecting  the  Lydian  origin  of  the  Etruscans 
did  not  rest  only  on  the  authority  of  Herodotus,  but  was  also 
supported  by  historical  tradition,  which  represented  the 
original  Etruscan  settlements  to  have  been  on  the  southern, 
or  Roman  side  of  the  Apennines ;  that  is,  in  Etruria  proper. 
Hence  they  pushed  forward  their  colonies  northwards  to  the 
Alps;  facts  which  show  that  they  did  not  enter  Italy  by 
those  mountains,  but  by  the  sea.  And  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  this  tradition  belongs  to  the  historical  times,  the 
Gallic  invasion  which  drove  the  Etruscans  from  JSTorth  Italy 
having  occurred  so  late  as  the  reign  of  Tarquinius  Priscus. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  seems  to  us  most  probable  that 
the  greater  part  of  the  population  of  Etruria  was  composed  of 
Uml)rians,  whom  the  Lydians  had  reduced  to  a  state  of  sub- 
jection ;  since  we  find  that  when  the  Gauls  invaded  Northern 
Italy,  about  the  time  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  they  not  only 
drove  out  the  Etruscans,  the  dominant  race,  but  also  the 
Umbrians,  who  were  their  subjects ;  a  fact  which  Livy  seems 
to  mention  with  some  surprise,^  and  in  a  way  which  would 
lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  first  Celtic  tribes  which  passed 
the  Alps  had  suffered  the  Umbrians  to  remain  in  the  districts 
between  those  mountains  and  the  Po,  but  that  subsequent 
invaders  had  expelled  even  them  as  well  as  the  Etruscans.  In 
fact,  a  semi-barbarous  race,  as  the  Gauls  then  were,  would  not 
have  had  much  occasion  for  the  services  of  a  people  that  must 
have  resembled  them,  while  the  more  civilized  Lydians  knew 
how  to  convert  them  into  useful  dependants  and  servants. 

Besides  the  Lydians  and  the  Umbrians,  another  element  of 
the  Etruscan  population  was  the  Greeks  settled  on  the  sea- 
coast  and  in  the  southern  parts  of  Etruria.     In  the  course  of 


direct  variance  with  Mommsen's  assertion  (Rom.  Gesch.  B.  i.  Kap.  9,  S.  82), 
that  in  historical  times  the  Etruscans  moved  from  north  to  south.  That  the 
Etruscans  were  first  driven  into  Rhffitia  by  the  Gauls  is  also  the  opinion  of 
Schwegler  (Rom.  Gesch.  i.  269). 

1  "  Penino  deinde  Boii  Lingonesque  transgress!,  quum  jam  inter  Padum  atque 
Alpes  omnia  tenerentur,  Pado  ratibus  trajecto,  non  Etruscos  modo,  sed  etiam 
Unibros  agro  pellunt:  intra  Apenninum  tamen  sese  tenuere." — Lib.  v.  c.  35. 

C 


18 


IIISTOEY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


THE   SABELLIAN   RACES. 


19 


time,  when  the  Etruscan  dominion  had  been  limited  to 
Etriiria  proper,  or  the  country  between  the  jMagra  on  the 
north,  tlie  Tiber  on  the  south,  the  Apennines  on  the  east, 
and  the  Tyrrhenian  Sea  on  the  west,  all  these  elements,  being 
confined  to  narrower  limits,  became  gradually  more  and  more 
fused  together,  and  the  language  and  customs  of  the  Lydians, 
the  governing  race,  obtained  the  predominance.  How  the 
nation  thus  formed  obtained  the  name  of  Etruscans  it  is 
difficult  to  sav,  but  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  it  should  not 
have  been  imposed  by  the  dominant  race.  ■'The  Umbrians,  to 
judge  from  the  Eugubine  Tables,  appear  to  have  called  them 
Titrsci,  which,  by  an  easy  transposition  of  the  u  and  ?% 
became  Trusci,  and  by  the  addition  of  e,  probably  an  article, 
Etrusci.  Tusci  and  Etruria  are  perhaps  Eoman  corruptions.  - 
The  name  of  Rhasennce,  mentioned  only  by  Dionysius,  may 
rest  on  some  mistake  of  that  author.  The  root  of  Titrsci  is 
perhaps  to  be  sought  in  Tyrsenus,  the  name  of  the  leader 
of  the  Lydian  emigration.  ^  The  appellation  can  hardly 
have  been  derived  from  the  T}Trhenian  Pelasgians  as  founders 
of  the  Hellenic  portion  of  the  Etruscans ;  and  the  name  of 
Mare  Tyrrhenum,  for  the  Lower  Sea,  seems  to  have  been 
chiefly  confined  to  Greek  writers.  The  Etruscans,  how- 
ever, when  in  possession  of  j^orthern  Italy,  appear  to  have 
given  name  to  tlie  Adriatic  through  their  colony  of  Adria, 
near  the  months  of  the  Po. 

Besides  the  lapygians  and  Etruscans,  Ancient  Italy  was 
inhabited  by  various  other  nations,  which,  as  they  spoke 
cognate  dialects,  are  supposed  to  have  been  originally  de- 
scended from  one  common  stock.  Their  remote  stock  is 
universally  agreed  to  have  been  Indo-European;  whether 
their  more  immediate  stock  was  Greek,  Teutonic,  or  Celtic, 
has  been  differently  determined,  according  to  the  judgment  or 

^  May  not  the  name  Tvpo-rjuSs  he  composed  of  Typo-,  whence  the  Tursci  of 
the  Umbrians,  and  rjvSs,  a  significant  particle,  meaning  in  Lydian  son,  or 
something  analogous?  Hence  wo  might  explain  such  Etruscan  names  as 
Pors-ena  (or  Porsenna),  Vib-ena,  &c.  The  making  of  the  e  short  seems  to  be  a 
licence  taken  by  some,  not  all,  of  the  Latin  poets.  Greek  authors  write  nopa-Zii^as 
or  nop(T7yos.  Virgil,  the  most  learned  of  the  Latin  poets,  has  Porsena  (JEn. 
viii.  646). 


m^t 


the  prejudice  of  inquirers.  Tliese  various  races  are  commonly 
ranked  under  the  three  grand  divisions  of  Umbrians,  Sabel- 
lians,  and  Latins ;  though  some  writers,  as  Dr.  Mommsen. 
recognise  only  two,  including  under  the  Umbrians  those  races 
which  others  call  Sal^ellian.  Tlie  Sabellian  races  included 
tlie  Sabines  and  the  Samnites,  with  the  tribes  which  sprun^ 
from  them,  as  the  iVIarsi,  ]\Iarrucini,  Peligni,  Picentes,  Hirpini, 
and  others.  The  near  connexion  between  the  Sabines  and 
the  Samnites  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  latter  called 
themselves  Safini,^  with  a  change  of  h  into/.  And  that  the 
term  SahcUus  was  applied  both  to  Samnites  and  Sabines 
appears  from  several  passages  in  ancient  authors.  Horace 
uses  it  of  both  races.  ^  Pliny  says  that  the  Samnites  were 
called  Sabelli,^  and  Livy  identifies  the  Sabellian  territory 
with  that  of  Samnium.* 

The  Sabines,  the  Samnites,  and  their  cognate  races  occu- 
pied the  greater  part  of  Central  Italy,  from  the  Nar  and  the 
^sis  on  the  north  to  Lucania  and  Apulia  on  the  south,  and 
from  the  Adriatic  on  the  east  to  Latium  and  Campania 
on  the  west.  North  of  these  lay  the  Umbrians,  who,  in  very 
early  times,  probably  occupied  the  whole  of  Northern  Italy, 
from  sea  to  sea,  and  as  far  as  the  Alps,  with  the  exception  of 
Liguria  on  the  west,  and  the  territory  of  the  Veneti  on  the 
east.  At  the  time  when  Eome  was  founded  they  still  con- 
tinued to  occupy  these  regions ;  for  they  had  not  yet  been 
driven  from  the  north  by  the  invasion  of  the  Gauls  and 
the  establishment  of  Gallia  Cisalpina.  But,  for  the  most 
part  at  all  events,  they  were  no  longer  independent.  They 
had  been  subdued  by  the  Etruscans,  who  appear  to  have 
held  as  conquerors,  as  we  have  already  observed,  the  greater 
part  of  the  Umbrian  territory  as  alcove  defined,  as  far  south 
at  least,  as  Eelsina,  or  Bononia,  which  they  appear  to  have 

1  Mommsen,  Unterit.  Dial.  S.  lOL 

2  Of  the  Samnites,  Sat.  ii.  1,  36  :  of  the  Sabines,  Od.  iii.  6,  .38  ;  Sat.  i.  9, 
29,  &c. 

3  H.  K  iii.  12,  17. ;  cf.  Strab.  v.  12,  p.  250. 

*  "  Alteri  Consuli  i1^]milio,  ingresso  S^ellum  agrum,  non  castraSamnitium, 
nonlegiones  usquam  oppositae." — Lib.  viii.  c.  1. 

c2 


4. 


20 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   EOME. 


founded.  In  the  south-east  the  TJmbrians  seem  to  have 
maintained  their  independence  ;  but  after  the  Gallic  invasion 
they  were  reduced  to  a  small  strip  of  land  between  Etruria 
on  the  west,  and  the  central  chain  of  the  Apennines  on  the 
east,  and  from  the  sources  of  the  Tiber  on  the  north,  to  the 
Sabine  territory  on  the  south. 

If  the  Umbrians  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  most  ancient  of 
the  Italian  races,  as  they  are  universally  represented  to  be  by 
ancient  authors — -though  this  hardly  agrees  with  the  theory 
that  Italy  was  peopled  exclusively  by  land,  since  in  that  case 
we  might  expect  them  to  have  been  thrust  towards  the  south 
— then  they  must  be  regarded  as  the  progenitors  of  those 
Umbro-Sabellian  tribes  before  alluded  to,  who  spoke  cognate 
dialects.  And  this  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  philological  re- 
searches, facilitated  by  the  celebrated  Tables  found  at  Gubbio, 
the  ancient  Iguvium,  containing  tolerably  long  specimens  of 
what,  from  the  place  of  their  discovery,  is  considered  to  have 
been  the  ancient  Umbrian  dialect. 

The  southern  extremities  of  Italy,  besides  the  lapygians, 
seem,  in  very  ancient  times,  and  before  the  foundation  of 
Eome,  to  have  been  inhabited  by  various  Grecian  or  Pelasgic 
tribes,^  such  as  the  OEnotrians,  or  I  tali,  the  Daunians,  Siculi, 
&c.,  whose  history  and  ethnological  affinities  are  so  obscure 
and  perplexed,  that  it  would  altogether  exceed  the  scope  of 
the  present  work  to  attempt  to  imravel  tliem.  Only  as  the 
name  of  the  Itali,  who  are  supposed  to  have  been  identical 
with  the  (Enotrii,  has  become  famous  by  being  extended  to 
the  whole  Italian  peninsula,  we  may  mention  that  originally 
they  seem  to  have  occupied  only  the  extremity  of  the  toe  of 
Italy,  or  Bruttium,  southwards  from  the  Terinaean  and  Scyl- 
Isetian  Gulfs.  Hence  the  race  and  the  name  spread  north- 
wards over  the  territory  subsequently  occupied  by  the 
Lucanians,  a  Samnite  race,  who  with  the  Bruttii  seem  to 
have   subdued  the   Itali.     How,  after  this  catastrophe,  the 

1  Among  other  evidences  of  Greek  colonization  at  a  very  remote  period,  may 
be  mentioned  the  Scyllsean  promontory  in  Argolis,  and  the  promontory  of  the 
same  name  on  the  coast  of  Bruttium,  or  Italia,  alluded  to  by  Homer  (Odyss. 
xii.  73,  235,  &c.). 


A 


MAGNA   GRiECIA — LATIUM. 


21 


name  came  to  be  preserved,  and  ultimately  to  have  been 
adopted  for  the  whole  peninsula,  from  the  Alps  to  the 
southernmost  extremity,  is  a  problem  which  we  are  unable 
to  solve.  It  appears  to  have  been  applied  in  that  extended 
signification  at  least  as  early  as  the  time  of  I^olybius,^  or 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half  before  the  Christian  era  ; 
though  its  meaning  does  not  seem  to  have  been  quite  settled 
even  in  the  time  of  Augustus,  as  Dionysius  thinks  it  necessary 
to  define  what  he  comprehends  under  the  name.^ 

All  this  southern  part  of  Italy  came  afterwards  to  be  called 
Magna  Gnecia,  from  the  numerous  Greek  colonies  founded 
along  its  coasts.  Xortli  of  the  Itali,  or  the  more  modern 
Lucania,  extending  from  the  river  Silarus  on  the  south  to  the 
Liris  on  the  north,  and  bounded  on  the  west  by  the  sea,  on 
the  east  by  the  country  of  the  Sabines,  lay  the  district  known 
in  later  times  as  Campania,  but  inhabited  at  an  early  period 
by  the  Ausonians,  Opicans,  or  Oscans,  who,  if  not  identical, 
were  probably  only  different  tribes  of  the  same  people. 
/  It  remains  to  give  some  account  of  Latium,  tlie  most  im- 
portant of  all  the  Italian  districts,  as  the  country  of  the  Latin 
race,  and  the  seat  of  Eome.  The  boundaries  of  Latium  were 
at  first  uncertain,  except  where  they  are  marked  by  the  Anio, 
the  Tiber,  and  the  sea.  On  the  east  and  south  the  Latins 
were  surrounded  by  hostile  nations,  the  Sabines,  the  Hernici, 
^qui,  and  Volsci,  and  their  limits  seem  to  have  varied  with 
their  success  in  war. 
/  The  early  history  of  Latium  is  as  obscure  as  that  of  the 
other  Italian  nations,  and  even  more  so,  from  the  figments 
respecting  it  handed  down  by  ancient  authors.  It  appears  to 
have  been  inhabited  at  an  early  period  by  the  Siculi,  who, 
perhaps,  also  had  possession  of  Campania,  and  were  probably 
a  Pelasgic  or  Greek  race  nearly  allied  to  the  OEnotrians  or 
Itali.  These  tribes  would  then  have  held  possession  of  the 
southern  and  western  coasts  of  Italy,  as  far  north  as  the 
Tiber,  till  they  were,  for  the  most  part,  driven  out  or  subdued 
l)y  the  advancing  Sabellian  nations,  when  they  retired  into 
Sicily,   and   gave  name   to  that  island.     Their  presence  in 

1  Hist.  ii.  14.  «  Ant.  Rom.  i.  10. 


22 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


Latium  seems  to  be  attested  by  some  words  common  to  the 
Latin  with  Sicilian  Greek.^      Pliny  enumerates  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Latium  in  the  following  order  :  Aborigines,  Pelasgians, 
Arcadians,  Siculians,   Aurunci,    Eutulians.^       The    Aurunci 
seem  to  have  been  identical  with  the  Ausones.     The  Pelas- 
gians and  Arcadians  must  have  been  colonists  from  Greece, 
who  settled  in  Latium  at  a  very  remote  period.     The  Latin 
traditions  conveyed   an  indistinct  memory   of  them   in  the 
stories  of   Hercules  and  the  Pelasgian  Argives  founding  a 
Saturnian  city  on  the  Capitol ine  Hill,  of  the  Arcadian  Evander 
building   another   on  the   Palatine,   and   of  a  third   called 
Antipolis  on  Mons  Janiculus.     These  settlements,  however, 
w^ere  abandoned,  from  what  cause  cannot  be  said,  and  the 
inhabitants  probably  proceeded  further  inland,  or  joined  their 
Hellenic  brethren  in  the  south  of  Etruria.      It  is  possible 
that  the  inconvenience  of  the  situation  may  have  led  to  their 
abandonment ;  for  Eome  was  the  last  city  built  in  this  district, 
by  a  necessity  apparently  which  left  no  choice,  all  the  sur- 
rounding parts  being  then  thickly  studded  with  towns.     Dr. 
Mommsen,  indeed,  in  his  history,  rejects  all  these  accounts  of 
Grecian  colonists,  and  considers  the  Latins  to  have  been  a 
pure  and  unmixed  Italian  race.     Yet  his  opinions  as  a  phi- 
lologist differ  from  those  which  he  holds  as  an  historian.     For 
in  his  work  on  the  dialects  of  Lower  Italy,  he  maintains  that 
the  Arcadian  refugee  Evander  brought  the  Greek  alphabet  to 
the  inhabitants  of  Latium,  and  that  his  mother  Carmenta 
formed  out  of  it  the  oldest  Latin  one,  in  order  to  commit  to 
writing  the  holy  formidae,  or  Sacra  Carmina,  over  which  she 
presided.     Dr.  Mommsen  does  not,  indeed,  say  that  Evander 
founded  a  colony ;  but,  on  his  own  showing,  Evander  and  his 
mother  must  have  exercised  a  very  considerable  influence ; 
and  that  they  could  have  come  into  Italy  at  all  is  a  very 

1  Mommsen,  Eom.  Gesch.  B.  i.  Kap.  3,  quotes  a  few  of  these,  and  thinks 
they  may  have  resulted  from  the  commerce  between  Rome  and  Sicily.  But 
there  are  more  than  he  cites,  and  some  of  these  latter  could  have  had  no 
reference  to  commerce  ;  as  gelu^  campus,  ne^mtes,  &c.  See  Newman,  Regal 
Rome,  p.  11,  and  Miiller,  Etrusker,  p,  12. 

2  H.  N.  iii.  9. 


FOUNDATION   OF   ROME. 


23 


important  admission  from  one  who  elsewhere  so  stoutly 
denies  the  possibility  of  such  a  visit  in  the  state  in  which 
navigation  was  in  that  very  remote  period.^ 


SECTION  IL 


FOUNDATION   OF   ROME. 

The  constancy  with  which  tradition  asserts  the  foreign  origin 
of  Rome  forbids  us  to  think  that  it  could  have  been  founded 
by  native  Latins;  while  the  name  itself  ('Pc5yLta=Valentia, 
strength)  points  directly,  like  Pyrgiy  or  Ncapolis,  to  Greek 
founders.  The  traditions  respecting  its  origin  are,  however, 
so  numerous  and  so  divergent  as  to  deprive  them,  for  the 
most  part,  of  any  historical  value  ;  and  the  fact  that  they  are 
almost  whoUy  found  in  Greek  authors  tends  the  same  way. 
Any  Latin  traditions  would  naturally  be  more  trustworthy ; 
and  such  fortunately  have  been  preserved  by  Dionysius. 
They  were  taken,  it  appears,  from  the  sacred,  or  sacerdotal, 
books;  and  as  such  books  could  not,  of' course,  have  been 
in  existence  before  the  time  of  Numa,  we  may  infer,  from 
their  mentioning  antecedent  events,  that  the  Pontifices  were 
not,  like  the  Pontifex  Maximus,  mere  registrars  of  contem- 
porary occurrences,  but  comx)Osed  a  sort  of  chronicle,  re- 
sembling those  of  the  monks  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  that  in 
fact,  in  the  absence  of  a  cultivated  and  reading  public,  x^ro- 

^  *  *  Insofern  hat  also  die  Sage  durchaus  Recht,  wenn  sie  die  Einfiihrung  der 
litteratura  in  Rom  dem  Evander  oder  dem  Herkules  zuschreibt.  Von  den 
Felaso-ern  in  Arcadien  sei  die  Schrift  nach  Latium  gekommen,  iiicht  lange 
nach  dem  dieselbe  den  Arkadern  selber  bekannt  geworden  ;  der  Arcadische 
Fliichtling  Evander  habe  von  dort  das  griechische  Alphabet  den  Aboriginern 
mitf'ebracht  und  dessen  Mutter  Carmenta  daraus  das  iilteste  Lateinische 
gebildet  (grtecas  literas  in  latinas  commutavit,  Ilygin.)  ohne  Zeweifel  zuniichst 
znr  Aufzeichnung  der  heiligen  Formeln,  der  Sacra  Carmina,  denen  Carmenta 
vorstand." — Die  unteritalischen  Dialekte,  S.  28. 

Indeed  Dr.  Mommsen  is  as  great  a  stickler  for  the  antiquity  of  Italian  litera- 
ture as  he  is  a  determined  opponent  of  early  Greek  navigation.  Thus,  in  the 
work  just  cited  (p.  3),  he  holds  that  the  Samnites  brought  their  alphabet  with 
them  when  they  immigrated  at  some  remote  and  unknown  period  over  the 
Alps  into  Italy.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  a  writer  who  holds  such 
opinions  should  consider  the  early  Roman  history  to  be  entirely  fabulous. 


24 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


fessional  authors,  and  an  established  book-selling  trade,  they 
were  the  recognised  historiographers  of  the  Eoman  city.i 

After  giving  the  Greek  traditions  respecting  the  foundation 
of  Eome,  Dionysius  proceeds  as  follows  :  ^ — 

"  I  could  adduce  many  other  Greek  writers  who  record 
various  founders  of  the  city ;  but,  not  to  be  tedious,  I  will 
come  to  the  Eoman  authorities.  The  Eomans  have  not, 
indeed,  a  single  ancient  historian,  or  prose  writer :  but  they 
are  accustomed  to  draw  from  the  ancient  sources  preserved  in 
their  sacerdotal  books  {ev  UpaU  Ze\TOi<^).  Now  some  of  the 
writers  who  drew  from  these  books  say  that  Eomulus  and 
Eomus,  the  founders  of  Eome,  were  the  sons  of  -^neas  ; 
while  others  say  that  they  were  the  children  of  his  daughter, 
without  specifying  their  father ;  and  that  ^neas  gave  them 
as  hostages  to  Latinus,  king  of  the  Aborigines,  when  the 
treaty  was  made  between  them.  Latinus  not  only  treated 
the  youths  kindly,  but,  dying  without  male  issue,  made  them 
heirs  of  part  of  his  dominions.  Others  say  that  on  the 
death  of  ^neas,  Ascanius,  who  had  succeeded  to  all  his 
dominions,  divided  all  the  Latin  territory  into  three  parts, 
sharing  them  with  his  brothers  Eomulus  and  Eomus  ;  that 
Ascanius  himself  built  Alba  and  some  other  cities,  while 
Eomus  founded  Capua,  which  he  named  after  his  great- 
grandfather Capys ;  Anchise,  so  called  after  his  grandfather 
Anchises ;  ^Enea,  afterwards  Janiculum,  after  his  father ;  and 
Eome,  which  bore  his  own  name.  This  last  remained  some 
time  deserted,  till  the  Albans  sent  another  colony  thither,  led 
by  Eomulus  and  Eomus,  when  its  ancient  form  was  revived. 
Thus  it  appears  that  Eome  was  founded  twice ;  first  a  little 
after  the  Trojan  war,  and  again  fifteen  generations  later." 

We  have  here  a  strange  jumble  of  traditions,  from  which, 
however,  it  may  not  be  impossible  to  extract  a  kernel  of  truth. 

First  of  all  it  must  be  laid  down  that  the  traditions  about 
the  appearance  of  ^neas  in  Italy  are  nothing  but  pure  fable. 
Homer,  who  is  the  best  authority  concerning  him,  knows 
nothing  of  his  wanderings,  but  appears  to  have  conceived 
that  he  reigned  over  the  Trojans  after  the  death  of  Priam. 

^  See  the  Preliminary  Dissertation.  ^  u^\y  j   ^.j^^  73^ 


:^.-- 


"."I.  .. 


I  ■- 


.■".■ 


v.. 

■Si 


•5?' 


A, 


LATIN  TRADITION   OF   ROME.S   FOUNDATION.  25 

This  conclusion,  indeed,  is  drawn  from  a  sort  of  prophecy 
uttered  by  Poseidon  in  the  council  of  the  gods,  which  does 
not  state  ivJicre  ^neas  was  so  to  reign :  but  any  fair  and 
natural  interpretation  of  the  passage  will,  we  tliink,  show 
that  Homer  meant  at  Troy,^  and  Strabo  appears  to  have 
accepted  the  words  in  that  sense. ^  As  Schwegler  observes,^ 
Homer  cannot  mean,  by  any  common  exegetical  method,  that 
^neas  was  to  reign,  after  many  years  of  wandering,  over  a 
small  remainder  of  the  Trojans  in  a  distant  and  barbarous 
land.  Further,  that  as  all  poetical  prophecies  of  this  kind 
are  vaticiiiia  ex  cvcntii,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  this 
particular  one  had  fulfilled  itself  when  the  Iliad  was  written, 
and  that  its  fulfilment  was  known  to  Homer's  audience.  That 
the  iEneadte  reigned  in  the  Troad  after  the  death  of  ^neas 
is  also  shown  from  several  prose  writers.'*  It  would  be  super- 
fluous, however,  to  refute  at  any  length  a  fable  which  is,  we 
believe,  now  almost  universally  exploded.^  The  origin  of  it 
among  the  Eomans  has  been  ingeniously  referred  by  0.  Miiller^ 
to  the  bringing  of  the  Sibylline  Books  to  Eome.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  these  books  alluded  to  ^neas.  Dionysius 
appeals  to  them  in  corroboration  of  the  story  of  ^neas's 
arrival  in  Italy,  and  relates  that  the  portent  about  the  Trojans 
eating  their  tables  was  foretold  to  them  by  the  Sibyl  at  Mount 

^  Nut/  Se  Si)  AtVeiao  /Sir;  Tpca^acriv  dvoi^ei 

Kal  Trai^ouv  iralSes,  roi  k^v  f.iiT6Tri(rd€  yivtavrai. — 11,  xx.  307. 

2  Lib.  i.  xiii.  §  53.  3  Rom.  Gesch.  B.  i.  S.  293. 

4  As  Strabo,  xiii.  §  52,  seq.  ;  Conon,  Narr.  41 ;  Acusilaiis,  Fr.  26,  ap.  MUl- 
ler,  Fr.  Hist.  Gr.  t.  i.  p.l03  ;  and  anonymous  writers  alluded  to  by  Dionysius, 
Ant.  Rom.  i.  53.  It  also  appears  from  this  same  passage  of  Dionysius  that 
many  ancient  authors  either  denied  that  iEneas  had  come  into  Italy,  or 
asserted  that  it  was  another  ^Eneas,  and  not  the  son  of  Venus  and  Anchises. 

"  One  of  the  most  important  works  on  the  subject  is  Klausen's  ^neas  und 
die  Penaten,  Hamb.  1839,  2  Bde.  4to.  which  unites  the  merits  and  defects 
so  often  found  in  German  works  of  gi-eat  learning,  and  considerable  but  often 
overstrained  acuteness,  with  obscurity,  fancifulness,  and  tedious  prolixity. 
The  reader  will  find  a  short  but  satisfactory  refutation  of  the  legend  of  iEneas 
in  Schwegler's  Romische  Geschichte,  Buch  v. ;  or  in  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  Credi- 
bility of  the  Early  Roman  History,  vol.  i.  oh.  9. 

«  In  a  paper  in  the  Classical  Journal,  1822,  vol.  xxvi.  ^0.  52  :  Explicantur 
causae  Fabulae  de  iEneae  in  Italiam  adventu,  pp.  308—318. 


26 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


THE   LEGEJSD   OF   ^NEAS. 


27 


Ida.i  All  the  Greek  Sibylline  oracles  originated  with  the 
Teucrian  Sibyl,  who  delivered  her  prophecies  in  the  ravines 
of  Ida.  According  to  the  legend  she  was  born  at  Marpessus, 
a  place  not  far  from  Gergis,  in  the  Troad,  where  her  tomb 
was  shown  in  the  Temple  of  Apollo.  The  principal  snbject 
of  her  prophecies  was  the  race  of  the  iEneads,  which  rnled 
in  Mount  Ida  over  the  remnant  of  the  Teucrians.  The  Sibyl 
and  her  prophecies  w^as  afterwards  transferred  to  Erythrge, 
where,  as  the  Erythrc^an  Sibyl,  she  attained  her  greatest 
renown.  It  was  this  collection  of  prox^hecies  that  was  offered 
to  Tarquinius  Superbus,  having  come  no  doubt  by  way  of 
Cum«,  wdiich  had  indeed  a  celebrated  Sibyl,  but  no  oracles,  of 
its  own ;  -  and  appears  therefore  to  have  used  the  Gergithean 
collection.  That  this  had  been  brought  to  Cunu^  is  inferred 
from  the  circumstance  that  the  Campanian  Cumas  was  partly 
founded  by  the  ^olian  Cymteans,  among  whom  some  Teucrians 

of  Gergis  dwelt. ^ 

We  have  inserted  this  account  partly  for  its  ingenuity,  and 
partly  because,  as  the  Sibylline  books  offered  to  Tarquin  will 
occur  again  further  on,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  know  some- 
thing of  their  contents  and  their  reputed  origin.  That  they 
were''  originally  of  Trojan  growth  is  shown  by  the  circle  of 
gods  to  which  they  appear  to  relate,  as  Apollo,  Lato  or  Latona, 
Artemis  or  Diana,  Aphrodite  or  Venus,  and  Pallas  or  Minerva, 
all  which  deities  belong  to  the  native  worship  of  Mount  Ida  ; 
but  more  particularly  is  it  shown  by  their  inculcating  the 
worship  of  the  Ida3an  mother,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that 
it  was  at  their  bidding  the  Idaean  mother  was  brought  to 
Eome  from  Pessinus,  A.U.C.  549.*  Nevertheless  we  are  of 
opinion  that  the  legend  of  iEneas,  and,  in  connexion  with  it, 
the  history  of  the  Alban  kings,  by  which  the  Komans  ti'aced 
their  origin  to  him,  obtained  a  footing  in  Eome  in  a  less 
recondite"  manner.  It  was  a  common  practice  of  antiquity 
to  refer  the  foundation  of  cities  to  some  hero  or  demigod. 
Hercules,  Diomede,  and  ^neas  were  favourite  personages  for 


1  Lib.  i.  c.  49,  55. 

2  Pausau.  X.  12,  8. 


3  Athenteiis,  vi.  68  ;  xii.  26. 


4  Liv.  xxix.  10  ;  cf.  Schwegler.  B.  i.  S.  315. 


this  purpose  ;  and  the  ambiguity  of  Homer's  language  left  at 
least  a  peg  on  which  to  hang  the  fiction  of  the  wanderings  of 
iEneas,  who  is  reputed  to  have  founded  several  cities,  besides 
being  the  remote  founder  of  Pome.  Nay,  it  is  even  possible 
that  the  Sibyl — who  was  evidently  a  mercenary  impostor — 
may  have  been  induced  to  bring  her  wares  to  Pome,  from  a 
knowledge  that  the  Pomans  claimed  descent  from  ^neas, 
which  w^ould  render  the  books  inore  saleable. 

It  is  evident  that  the  legend  of  iEneas  was  not  credited  l)y 
educated  Pomans  of  the  later  times.  Cicero,  in  the  short 
sketch  which  he  gives  of  early  Ponian  history  in  the  second 
book  of  his  Pepublic,  says  not  a  word  about  it,  but  passes  on 
at  once  to  the  foundation  of  Pome.  Livy,  as  we  have  before 
taken  occasion  to  remark  in  the  Introduction,  considered,  as 
appears  from  his  Preface,  the  whole  history  before  the  time 
of  Pomulus,  as  it  was  commonly  received,  to  have  been 
fabulous.  But  the  story  of  ^neas  had  then  taken  such  hold 
of  the  public  mind,  and  was  so  intimately  connected  with  the 
glory  of  the  Julian  race,  that  he  consulted  perhaps  both  his 
literary  popularity  and  his  favour  with  the  imperial  family,  by 
abstaining  from  refuting  it.^  He  accepted  the  story  as  it  stood, 
without  inquiring  into  it  critically,  resigning  on  this  occasion 
his  functions  of  historian.  Hence  Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis  is 
rather  hard  upon  him  when  he  observes  that  ''  at  the  outset 
of  his  history  he  speaks  of  the  exception  made  in  favour  of 
^neas  and  Antenor,  after  the  capture  of  Troy,  by  the  vic- 
torious Greeks,  as  a  certain  feet ; "  ^  thus  charging  him  with 
inconsistency  in  varying  from  what  he  had  said  in  his  Preface. 
But  we  think  that  the  very  words  which  Sir  Cornewall  Lewis 
adduces  in  support  of  this  assertion  prove  the  contrary.  Livy 
does  not  say,  "jam  prinium  omnium  constat/'  as  he  would 

^  "Ea  nee  affirmare,  nee  refellere  in  animo  est." — Pritf.  How  grateful 
the  story  was  to  the  imperial  mind  is  shown  by  the  splendid  fiction  of  Virgil, 
the  ilatterer  of  Augustus,  who  also  gratified  the  popular  taste  by  pressing 
into  it,  against  all  the  laws  of  chronology,  the  tale  of  Dido,  and  by  many 
passages  calculated  to  fiatter  the  national  self-love.  But  the  iEneid  could 
hardly  have  been  published  when  Livy  wrote  his  Preface  and  earlier  books,  at 
least. 

^  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  344,  note  199. 


28 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


THE   rONTIFICIAL  TRADITION. 


29 


V 


have  done  in  announcing  a  certain  fact ;  but  he  qualifies  the 
word  "  constat "  with  "  satis  " — "  jam  primum  omnium  satis 
constat" — "it  is  tolerably  certain."  Sir  Cornewall  Lewis 
proceeds  to  charge  him  with  saying  of  Ascanius  that  lie  was 
certainly  the  son  of  ^neas — "  certe  natum  ^nea  constat," 
though  he  had  not  ventured  to  decide  whether  by  Creusa  or 
Lavinia.  Livy,  however,  is  here  also  quite  consistent.  He 
knew  very  well  that  the  true  Ascanius  could  not  have  been 
the  son  of  Lavinia  ;  but  he  was  quite  justified  in  calling  him 
the  son  of  ^neas,  for  which  he  had  the  authority  of  all 
antiquity.  It  was  delicate  ground.  The  whole  passage  was 
cautiously  framed,  so  as  not  to  question  too  rudely  the  im- 
perial pedigree ;  or  may  even  have  been  a  delicate  and  latent 
satire  upon  it.  "  I  will  not  pronounce  for  certain,"  says  Livy, 
"  whether  it  was  Ascanius,  or  an  elder  than  he,  born  of  Creusa 
before  Ilium  fell,  and  afterwards  the  companion  of  his  father's 
flight,  whom,  as  lulus,  the  Julian  family  claims  as  the  author 
of  its  name."  ^  In  fact,  Livy  knew  that  Ascanius  and  lulus 
were  two  distinct  personages,  born  many  centuries  apart ;  as 
we  shall  proceed  to  show. 

The  true  tradition,  that  Eome  had  been  founded  only  a 
generation  or  two  after  the  settlement  of  some  Greek  colonists 
on  the  coast  of  Latium,  had  been  preserved  in  the  pontifical 
books ;  but  these  unfortunately  had  been  burnt  when  Eome 
was  taken  by  the  Gauls.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted,  however, 
when  we  see  what  pains  the  Eomans  took  to  recover  their  old 
laws  after  that  catastrophe,^  that  the  priests  re-\\Tote  their 
Commentarii  at  that  epoch ;  for,  if  they  had  not  done  so,  how 
should  subsequent  authors  have  been  able  to  find  in  their 
books,  as  Dionysius  assures  us  they  did,  accounts  relating  to 
a  period  antecedent  to  the  foundation  of  Eome  ?  In  thus  re- 
writing their  books,  they  must,  no  doubt,  have  trusted  to  their 
memory,  unless  where  documents  were  still  extant  that  might 
have  guided  them ;  such  as  the  Annates  Maximi,  laws, 
treaties,  inscriptions,  domestic  histories,  &c.  The  Commentarii, 
however,  down  to  the  burning  of  the  city,  were  not  probably 
very  voluminous  ;  and  when  we  consider  that  there  were  five 
1  Liv.  i.  3.  2  Ibid.  vi.  1. 


pontiffs,  including  the  Pontifex  Maximus,  we  are  perhaps 
justified  in  thinking  that,  with  one  another's  assistance,  they 
may  have  restored  pretty  accurately  a  work  which  must  have 
been  one  of  their  chief  employments,  and  also  in  those  days, 
when  there  was  no  public  literature,  one  of  their  chief  amuse- 
ments, and  must  consequently  have  remained  pretty  deeply 
impressed  upon  their  memory.  It  must  be  allowed  also,  that 
the  original  work,  down  perhaps  to  the  time  of  Tullus  Hostilius, 
must  have  rested  on  tradition.  But  for  a  century  or  two  even 
tradition  may  be  trusted,  with  regard  at  least  to  leading 
political  events ;  and  if  the  immigrants  who  founded  Eomo 
landed  only  a  generation  or  two  before  its  foundation,  not 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half,  at  most,  might  have  inter- 
vened between  that  event  and  the  reign  of  Tullus.^ 

Meanwhile,  however,  between  the  first  edition  of  these 
books  and  their  restoration  after  the  Gallic  conflagration,  the 
story  of  ^neas's  arrival  in  Latium  and  its  consequences,  to- 
gether with  the  miraculous  birth  of  Eomulus,  had  taken  firm 
hold  of  the  public  mind.  To  trace  the  line  of  their  kings  to 
some  god  was  as  favourite  a  practice  among  the  ancients  as 
to  refer  the  foundation  of  their  city  to  some  demigod  or  hero. 
Thus  the  founder  of  the  Sabine  town  of  Cures  is  related  to 
have  been,  like  Eomulus,  the  offspring  of  Mars  and  of  a  noble 
virgin,  who  in  a  moment  of  divine  enthusiasm,  it  is  said,  had 
incautiously  entered  his  penetralia.^  To  run  counter  to  stories 
like  these  would  have  been  an  unpopular  act  on  the  part  of 
the  pontiffs ;  nor  were  the  stories  themselves  ill  calculated  to 
promote  superstition  and  priestcraft.     They  were  therefore 


1  Both  Nsevius  and  Ennius  adopted  the  tradition  that  Romulus  was  the 
grandson  of  iEneas  by  his  daughter  Ilia.  See  Serv.  Mn.  i.  273.  Yet  Ennius 
had  also  adopted  the  story  of  Mars  being  the  father  of  Romulus  and  Remus, 
the  exposure  of  the  twins,  the  suckling  of  them  by  the  wolf,  &c.  Ennius 
(ap.  Varro,  R.  R.  iii.  1,  2)  also  held  that  Rome  was  oidy  about  700  years  old 
in  his  time,  which  would  be  very  far  from  reaching  up  to  the  Trojan  times  ; 
while  at  the  same  time,  as  he  died  before  the  end  of  the  sixth  century  of  Rome, 
that  computation  would  exceed  by  more  than  a  century  the  received  date 
for  the  foundation  of  the  city.  These  contradictions  it  is  impossible  to 
reconcile. 

^  Dionys.  ii.  48,  after  Varro. 


30 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KIXGS   OF   ROME. 


accepted  in  the  new  edition  of  tlie  Commcntarii.  At  the 
same  time,  however,  the  pontiffs  were  honest  enough  to  insert 
the  original  story  containing  the  authentic  version  of  the  very 
speedy  foundation  of  liome  after  the  arrival  of  the  Greek 
colony ;  and  hence  the  inconsistent  stories  of  two  incases, 
two  Eomuluses,  the  confusion  between  Ascanius  and  lulus, 
and  a  double  foundation  of  Eome. 

The  story,  however,  derived  some  support  from  the  Pelasgian 
or  Grecian  settlements  which  had  been  made,  some  centuries 
l)efore  the  foundation  of  Ptome,  on  the  Capitoline  and  Palatine 
Hills  and  on  ^lons  Janiculus.  There  is  no  good  reason  to 
doubt  that  such  settlements  may  have  been  made,  when  we 
find  that  Cum?e  was,  in  all  probability,  founded  three  centuries 
before  the  era  commonly  recei^^ed  for  the  foundation  of  Eome, 
and  that  the  Greek  colonies  in  Etruria  must  also  have  been 
planted  long  before  that  event.  That  at  least  a  strong  tradi- 
tion of  such  settlements  prevailed  is  evident  from  the  circum- 
stance of  Eomulus  retaining  certain  memorials  of  them,  and 
even  consecrating  them  by  religious  observances :  that  of  an 
Argive  settlement,  under  the  reputed  leadership  of  Hercules, 
whose  worship  Eomulus  established  by  consecrating  to  him 
the  Ara  IVIaxima,  and  appointing  an  hereditary  priesthood  for 
his  worship ;  and  that  of  an  Arcadian  settlement  imder 
Evander,  who  was  also  honoured,  and  more  especially  in  the 
person  of  his  mother  Carmenta.  Why  these  settlements 
should  have  been  abandoned  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but 
much  perhaps  may  be  attributed  to  the  nature  of  the  site. 
To  fresh  comers,  who  had  no  experience  of  it,  this  site  may 
have  appeared  attractive  enough.  Isolated,  craggy  hills, 
which  a  broad  and  rapid  river  further  helped  to  defend, 
offered  at  least  a  secure  stronghold,  a  point  of  no  small  im- 
portance to  settlers  in  a  strange  country.  But  these  advan- 
tages were  soon  discovered  to  be  counterbalanced  by  equal 
defects ;  among  which  the  unhealthiness  of  the  air,  and  par- 
ticularly the  overflowings  of  the  Tiber,  which  must  have 
often  rendered  the  surrounding  neighbourhood  a  complete 
swamp,  are  sufficiently  obvious.  It  seems  not  improbable 
that   these   early  colonists,  when  they  abandoned   the   site 


1 

M 

V; 


M 


.1 


ft 

ri 


4 -A  ■ 


EARLY   GREEK   SETTLEMENTS   NEAR   ROME. 


31 


which  they  had  first  chosen,  may  have  betaken  themselves  to 
the  Alban  Blount,  and  there  have  founded  Alba  Longa.  It 
lies  witliin  about  twelve  miles  of  Eome;  its  elevated  situation 
also  offered  a  strong  position,  while  its  distance  from  the 
Tiber  and  its  floods  rendered  the  site  both  more  healtliy  and 
more  convenient.  Hence  from  the  mixture  of  this  Greek 
race  with  the  original  inhabitants  of  Latium,  whom  they  liad 
subdued,  arose  the  first  Latin  race,  distinguished  from  the 
later  one  by  the  name  of  Prisci  Latini. 

It  was  soon  discovered  by  the  Eomans  that  the  man  wliom 
they  called  iEneas  could  not  possibly  have  been  that  hero ; 
he  had  landed  on  their  coast  only  a  generation  or  two  before 
the  foundation  of  their  city  ;  and,  as  they  got  wiser  and  more 
learned  from  a  further  acquaintance  with  Greek  traditions, 
they  began  to  perceive  tliat  tlieir  tale  contained  an  ana- 
chronism of  many  centuries.  But  they  were  naturally  un- 
Avilling  to  abandon  it,  and,  in  order  to  retain  it,  they  adopted 
the  expedient  of  conncctnig  the  genealogy  of  their  founder 
with  that  of  the  Alban  kings.  Tliere  were  many  difficulties 
in  the  way,  wliicli,  however,  they  heeded  not.  Alba  liad 
become  thoroughly  Latinized  long  before  the  foundation  of 
Eome,  as  is  seen  by  its  very  name,  as  weU  as  by  the  names 
of  its  kings,  which,  besides  having  a  Latin  signification,  are 
also  double ;  that  is,  they  had  a  gentile  name  besides  their 
individual  one,  as  ^neas  Silvius,  Latinus  Silvius,  &c. ;  whilst 
the  name  of  Eome,  as  we  have  seen,  is  Greek,  and  the  name 
of  its  founder,  after  the  Greek  fashion,  single,  without  the 
gentile  addition  of  Silvius,  which  might  have  shown  him 
connected  with  the  royal  family  of  Alba.  This  is  a  botch 
which  betrays  the  rent  between  the  two  stories. 

That  Eome  was  a  colony  of  Alba  is  also  destitute  of  all 
historical  probability.  The  reasons  against  it  may  be  summed 
up  as  follows  :  ^  first,  immediately  Eome  is  founded.  Alba 
for  a  long  time  altogether  vanishes — there  are  no  traces 
of  any  connexion  as  between  a  colony  and  its  mother  city ; 
secondly,  had  there  been  such  a  connexion,  Eome  would  have 
had  the/«s  connuhii,  not  only  with  Alba,  but  also  with  all  the 

1  See  Schwegler,  Rom.  Gesch.  B.  i.  Biicli  viii.  S.  24. 


32 


HISTORY    OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


ROME   NO   COLONY   FROM   ALBA. 


83 


Latin  towns,  and  had  not  needed  to  resort  to  the  stealing  of 
women.  It  is  no  valid  objection  to  this  view  to  say  that 
Rome  must  have  had  the  jus  connuhii  with  Alba  before  the 
reign  of  Tullus  Hostilius,  since  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii  who 
fight  on  either  side  are  cousins ;  because  this  jus  might  have 
been  acquired  by  treaty,  although  there  is  no  special  record 
of  such  a  treaty  in  the  early  history.  Moreover,  no  invitations 
to  the  Consualia  are  despatched  to  Alba  Longa ;  and  again,  in 
the  war  with  the  Sabines,  when  the  Eomans  are  on  the  brink 
of  destruction,  no  aid  is  asked  from,  or  offered  by.  Alba,  the 
pretended  mother  city.  Dionysius,  indeed,  has  a  story  to  the 
contrary,^  which  is  also  to  be  found  in  Paterculus ;  ^  but  the 
way  in  which  this  author  speaks  of  it,  viewed  in  connexion 
with  all  the  circumstances  which  render  any  connexion  be- 
tween Eome  and  Alba  so  utterly  improbable,  shows  that  it 
was  invented  for  the  purpose  of  propping  up  what  was  con- 
sidered to  be  a  weak  point.  Another  objection,  first  started, 
apparently,  by  Beaufort,^  is,  that  Eomulus  never  appears  to 
have  made  any  claim  to  the  kingdom  of  Alba  after  Xumitor's 
death,  which  so  warlike  a  prince  would  hardly  have  failed  to 
do  had  he  really  been  Numitor's  grandson.*  Again,  Rome  at 
first  is  entirely  estranged  from  Latium,  which  would  not  have 
been  the  case  had  she  been  an  Alban  colony ;  in  which  case 
she  would  have  been  a  member  of  the  Latin  league.  The 
badness  of  the  site  on  which  Rome  is  built  is  also  sometimes 
adduced  as  an  argument  against  its  having  been  colonized 
from  Alba ;  but  we  are  unwilling  to  lay  any  great  stress  upon 
it:  Rome  was  founded  at  a  very  late  period,  probably  the 
very  latest  of  any  city  in  Latium ;  all  the  territory  around 


1  Lib.  ii.  c.  37. 

2  "  Id  gessit  Romulus,  aJjutus  legionibus  Latinis  avi  sui.  Libenter  enim  his, 
qui  ita  prodiderunt,  accesserim  ;  cum  alitor  firmare  urbem  novam,  tam  vicinis 
Veientibus  aliisque  Etruscis  ac  Sabinis,  cum  imbelli  et  pastorali  manu  vix 
potuerit." — Paterc.  lib.  i.  c.  8,  §  5.  Paterculus,  therefore,  believed  it,  not 
because  he  considered  it  an  authentic  tradition,  but  because  he  considered  it 
necessary  to  probability. 

^  Dissert,  sur  I'lncertitude,  &c.  p.  183. 

4  Plutarch,  Rom.  27,  mentions  an  improbable  and  unsupported  story  that 
Romulus,  after  Numitor's  death,  voluntarily  renounced  the  succession. 


m 


was  thickly  studded  with  towns,  and  the  adoption  of  sucli 
a  site  seems  to  have  been  not  a  matter  of  choice,  but  of 
necessity. 

The  notion  that  Rome  was  a  colony  regularly  planted  by 
Alba  seems,  for  these  reasons,  to  be  now  pretty  generally 
abandoned.  Some  scholars,  however,  have  imairined  a  com- 
promise,  which  indeed  has  more  probability,  and  have  con- 
sidered that,  instead  of  being  planted  in  the  regular  manner, 
it  was  founded  in  consequence  of  civil  dissensions  at  Alba, 
and  by  a  secession  of  part  of  its  inhabitants,  imder  the  con- 
duct of  Romulus.^  There  are  not  wanting  passages  which 
might  lend  a  colour  to  these  reputed  dissensions  at  Alba  ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  remarked  that  such  an 
origin  of  Rome  is  entirely  at  variance  with,  or  at  all  events 
wholly  unsupported  by,  the  ancient  tradition.  P>ut  what  we 
take  to  be  the  strongest  argument  against  an  Alban  origin  in 
any  way  is,  that  Rome,  as  we  shall  endeavour  to  show,  bears 
indubitable  marks  in  its  institutions  of  having  been  founded 
by  Greeks  who  had  not  very  long  before  landed  in  Italy,  and 
had  not  yet  forgotten  their  language  and  their  customs. 

The  foundation  of  Rome  is  probably  placed  the  better  part 
of  a  century  too  high,  and  should  fall,  perhaps,  as  we  have 
already  observed  in  the  Itnroduction,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
seventh  century  before  Christ,  instead  of  the  middle  of  the 
eighth.  Greek  colonization  on  the  Italian  coast  was  remark- 
ably active  in  the  latter  half  of  the  eiglitli  century,  when 
Rhegium,  Sybaris,  and  Tarentum  were  founded.  This  colo- 
nization went  on  two  or  three  centuries  longer.  Thus  we  find 
Hyele,  or  Velia,  founded  in  B.C.  544,  and  Buxentum  even  so 
late  as  B.C.  470.  Hyele  was  founded  by  PhoCcTans,  who  also 
founded  Massalia,  probably  about  the  same  time.  When 
Phocaea  was  besieged,  in  B.C.  546,  by  Harpagus,  the  general  of 
Cyrus,  the  inhabitants  embarked  on  board  their  fieet,  and 
endeavoured  to  form  a  settlement  in  the  islands  of  (Enussie, 
belonging  to  Chios ;  but  being  repulsed  by  the  Cliians,  tliey 
proceeded  to  Alalia,   in  Corsica,  a  colony  wliich  they  had 

1  This  view  has  been  adopted  by  Rubiiio,  Rom.  Staatsverf,   §  112,   Anm.  2  ; 
Gottling,  Gesch.  der  Rom.  Staatsverf,  §  44,  and  others. 

D 


34 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


THE   PHOC^ANS   AND   TARQUINIUS   PRISCUS. 


35 


fuunded  about  twenty  years  before.     After  staying  there  five 
years,  they  went  to  Ehegium,  and  soon  after  founded  Hyele, 
or  Vdia.i     Herodotus,  who  relates  these   events,  mentions 
nothing  about  their  founding  Massalia ;  but  Pausanias  repre- 
sents these  same  fugitives  from  tlie  Medes  as  settling  there 
after  defeating  the  Carthaginians  in  a  naval  battle.^     It  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  this  is  the  same  battle  alluded  to  by 
Herodotus  and  by  Thucydides.^    There  is,  however,  other  evi- 
dence to  fix  the  foundation  of  INIassalia,  which  is  incidentally 
of  some  impoi-tance  to  the  early  chronology  of  Eome.    Justin, 
the  epitomizer  of  Trogus  Pompeius,  tells  us  that  the  PhoccTans, 
on  their  way,  entered  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber,  in  the  reign  of 
King  Tarquinius,  and  contracted  an  alliance  with  the  Ptomans  ; 
and  thence,  sailing  into  the  furthest  gulfs  of  Gaul,  founded 
Massilia  among  the  Ligurians  and  the  savage  Gallic  races.* 
Justin,  of  course,  means  Tarquinius  Prisons.     His  testimony 
is  confirmed  by  Livy,  who  relates  that  when  the  Gauls  were 
passing  into  Italy,  in  the  reign  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  they 
heard  on  their  way  that  the  Massilienses  from  Phocsea  were 
attacked  by  the  Ligurian  tribe  of  the  Salyes.^ 

But  how  shall  we  reconcile  this  account  with  the  ordinary 
chronology  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  which  fixes  his  reign  from 
B.C.  616  to  578?  If  the  Phoceeans  only  took  to  their  ships  in 
B.C.  546,  and  founded  Massalia  some  years  afterwards,  it  is 
evident  that  they  could  never  have  arrived  in  Italy  in  the 
lifetime  of  the  elder  Tarquin.  There  is,  indeed,  an  account  in 
Scymnus  Chius,  which  professes  to  be  taken  from  Tinuneus,  of 
a  previous  foundation  of  Massalia  one  hundred  and  twenty 
years  before  the  battle  of  Salamis,  or  B.C.  600.^  But  that  work 

1  Herod,  i.  163—167.  2  x.  8,  §  6.  ^  Lib.  i.  c.  13. 

*  "  Temporibus  Tarquinii  regis  ex  Asia  rbocjcensium  juventus  ostio  Tiberis 
invecta  amicitiam  cum  Eomanis  jimxit :  inde  in  ultimos  Gallise  sinus  na\dbu3 
profecta  Massiliam  inter  Ligures  et  feras  gentes  Gallorum  condidit. "— Lib. 
xliii.  c.  3.  ^       ^  Liv.  V.  34. 

•  MaffffaXia  S'  effr   exo/^eVr/ 
IloAiS  fieylarr}  ^w/caTwr  diroiKLa, 

'Ev  rr}  AiyvaTLi/fj  5e  ravrriv  eKTiffav 

Tlph  TTJs  fxa-xn^  TVS  cV  2aAa/xiVr;  yevofxevri? 

"Erecriv  irporfpov,  ws  (paaiv,  Ikutou  €^KO<rt' 

Tiuaios  ovTws  tVTopeT  Se  ttJi/  ktIo-iv. — Vers.  208,  seq^*. 


J 


has  been  shown  to  be  spurious ;  ^  besides,  the  Phocaeans  who 
visited  Tarquin  are  expressly  said  to  have  been  those  flying 
from  the  Medes.  Herodotus,  who  mentions  Alalia,  knows 
nothing  of  a  previous  Phoca^an  colony.  Nor  does  Justin — or, 
rather,  Trogus  Pompeius,  whom  he  abridged, — wlio,  being  of 
Gallic  descent,  was  likely  to  have  taken  a  strong  interest  in 
such  a  subject,  and  gives  the  longest  account  of  it  which  we 
possess,  recognise  more  than  one  foundation  of  Massalia. 
And  if,  as  we  have  shown  on  other  grounds,  the  date  of  the 
foundation  of  Eome  is  to  be  placed  seventy  or  eighty  years 
lower  than  the  era  commonly  received,  then  the  account  of 
this  visit  tallies  very  well  with  the  chronology  of  Tarquin, 
and,  in  fact,  may  be  regarded  as  forming  a  corroboration 
of  it. 

Our  main  object  in  adverting  to  this  account  of  the  founda- 
tion of  Massalia,  and  to  the  Greek  colonies  planted  on  the 
coast  of  Italy  at  that  time,  and  a  couple  of  centuries  earlier,  is 
to  show  that  the  establishment  of  one  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Eome  during  this  period  is  by  no  means  improbable.  Col- 
laterally, it  has  also  served  to  show  that  there  really  was 
such  a  king  as  Tarquinius  Priscus,  whom  it  is  now  the  fashion 
to  regard  as  a  mythical  personage;  for  it  is  impossible  to 
believe  that  two  independent  notices  of  him  by  two  different 
authors,  both  on  the  occasion  of  the  same  event,  but  of 
different  phases  of  that  event,  were  the  result  either  of 
accident  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  a  fictitious  combination  on 
the  other. 

Where  the  colony  which  ultimately  founded  Eome  first 
established  itself,  we  will  not  pretend  to  say.  We  will  only 
observe  that  there  seems  to  be  the  same  ambiguity  between 
Lavinium  and  Laurentum  as  between  the  two  ^neases,  the 
two  Eomuluses,  and  the  two  foundations  of  the  city.  Thus 
the  retainers  of  King  Tatius  are  represented  to  have  struck 
the  ambassadors  of  the  Laurentines ;  yet  the  insult  is  avenged 
by  the  murder  of  Tatius  at  Lavinium}  May  not  this  ill- 
feeling  between  the  Sabine  Tatius  and  the  Laurentines  have 

^  By  Meineke,  in  his  edition  of  Scymnus  (Berlin,  1846). 
«  Liv.  i.  14. 

d2 


ik 


36  HISTORY    OF   THK   KINGS   OF    ROME. 

arisen  from  the  latter  having  been  the  progenitors  of  the 
Grfeco-Iloman  portion  of  his  subjects  ?i     On  this  occasion 
Eomulus  forbears  to  punish,  and  renews-for  what  reason 
does  not  appear-a  former  treaty  between  Eome  and  Lavi- 
nium      It  is  possible  tliat  a  body  of  Laurentmes  may  have 
gone  to  Lavinium  to  murder  Tatius.    The  more  ancient  Greek 
colony  which  subsequently  migrated  to  Alba  Longa,  was  first. 
perhaps,  established  at  Lavinium ;  for  it  is  incredible,  it  they 
originally  settled  at  Laurentum,  that  they  should  have  re- 
moved to  another  place,  of  much  the  same  kind,  only  four  or 
five  miles  distant.    Lavinium  was  probably  the  cradle  of  the 
Prisci  Latini,  the  founders  of  Alba,  and  Laurentum  that  of  the 
more  modern  Latins  represented  by  the  Romans.     In  process 
of  time,  as  the  Eomans  confounded  their  early  history  with 
that  of  Alba,  so  also  they  would  naturally  confound  the  two 
cradles  of  the  races ;  and  Lavinium  came,  at  length,  to  be 
looked  up  to  as  the  original  settlement  of  ^neas,  the  abode 
of  the  Penates,  and,  as  it  were,  the  birthplace  of  the  whole 

The  above  remarks  are  merely  offered  as  conjectures.   They 
do  not  pretend  to  any  historical  authority ;  for  it  would  be 
idle  in  a  modern  writer  to  seek  any  in  a  subject  abandoned 
by  Livy  as  mythical.     There  \Yere,  however,  certainly  such 
towns  as  Lavinium  and  Laurentum,  and  there  were  also  certain 
traditions  connected  with  them  ;  and,  in  so  famous  a  subject, 
the  imagination  may  please  itself  awhile  in  endeavourmg  to 
select   and   arrange  the  vestiges   of  probability.     After  the 
foundation  of  the  city,  tradition  becomes  more  firm  and  con- 
sistent ;  for  it  is  still  to  tradition  that  we  must  look  for, 
perhaps,  three-fourths  of  the  first  century  of  its  existence. 
But  it  is  now  confined  to  a  definite  place,  and  is  aided  by 
walls  and  temples,  and  other  monuments  ;   in  short,  it  has 
emancipated  itself  from  that  period  which  the  Roman  historian 
considered  as  fabulous. 

It  seems  probable  that  Eomulus,  before  he  built  his  city, 
had  contracted  an  alliance  with  some  of  the  Grecian  cities  of 

1  The  name  Laurentum  is  perhaps  derived  from  the  Greek  \avpa,  a  street  or 
villaf'e,  a  small  place,  such  as  would  be  founded  by  new  colonists. 


THE    ORIGIN   OF   l!Ox\lE. 


37 


-  li"..  . 


.^' 


Etruria,  which,  though  belonging  to  tlie  Etruscan  confederacy, 
continued  to  retain  their  Hellenic  customs.  These  Etruscan 
cities,  when  the  general  interests  of  the  league  were  not  in 
question,  seem  to  have  acted  pretty  independently.  To  some 
such  alliance  we  must  refer  the  circumstance  of  liis  building 
Eome  with  Etruscan  rites,  and  his  adopting  the  Etruscan 
ensigns  of  regal  power ;  as  well  as  the  aid  whicli  he  appears 
to  have  received  from  Etruria  in  his  struggle  with  tlie  Sabines, 
to  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  advert  further  on.  He 
must  also  have  conciliated  the  shepherds  who  fed  their  flocks 
on  the  future  site  of  Eome,  and  who  probably  belonged  to  the 
Latin  race.  AVhetlier  they  had  been  previously  connected 
with  Alba,  it  were  useless  to  inquire. 

But  before  proceeding  any  further,  let  us  relate  the  story 
which  obtained  almost  universal  acceptance,  if  not  belief, 
among  the  Eomans  themselves.  It  plays  so  great  a  part  in 
their  traditions,  it  has  been  the  subject  of  so  much  of  their 
poetry,  and  is  in  itself  so  pleasnig  and  poetical,  that  it  is  ab- 
solutely necessary  for  the  student  of  Eoman  history  and 
literature  to  be  acquainted  with  it. 

After  the  fall  of  Troy,  ^neas  is  supposed  to  have  embarked 
upon  his  fleet,  and  to  have  visited  successively  Pallene  and 
the  shores  of  Northern  Greece,  the  islands  of  Delos,  Crete,  and 
Zacynthus.  Hence,  after  touching  at  Leucas,  Buthrotum, 
and  other  places,  he  makes  the  Italian  shore  at  the  lapygian 
promontory,  and,  coasting  along  its  southern  extremity,  arrives 
off  Sicily,  and  proceeds  to  Drepanum  at  its  western  end.  The 
storm  which  overtook  the  Trojans  on  sailing  from  this  port 
forms  the  opening  of  the  ^neid.  They  are  described  as  driven 
by  it  to  the  coast  of  Africa,  for  the  purpose  of  introducing 
into  the  Latin  version  of  the  story  the  famous  anachronism  of 
iEneas's  visit  to  Dido  ;  an  episode,  however,  which  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  invented  by  Virgil,  but  to  have  been 
introduced  by  Nsevias,  in  his  poem  on  the  "  Eirst  Punic 
War,"  1  some  two  centuries  before  Virgil's  time.  Varro  seems 
also  to  have  recognised  the  story  of  iEneas's  visit  to  Cartilage, 

1  See  Nsevii  Fragmenta,  ed.  Klussraann,  p.  38,  seqq. ;  Lewis,  Credibility,  &c. 
vol.  i.  p.  316,  note  76. 


;^^-. 


■JV 


T  IT 
■  i 


38 


HISTORY    OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


thougli  he  makes  Anna,  Dido's  sister,  and  not  the  Carthaginian 
queen  herself,  enamoured  of  the  Trojan  hero ;  ^  but  the  ac 
count  of  ^neas  being  driven  to  the  African  coast  is  ignored 
both  by  Livy  and  Dionysius. 

After  leaving  Carthage,  ^neas  again  visits  the  western 
point  of  Sicily,  and  founds  the  town  of  Segesta,  and  a  temple 
of  Venus  at  Eryx.  Then,  having  left  a  portion  of  his  followers 
in  Sicily,  he  sails  for  the  Italian  coast.  Points  on  this 
coast  which  have  become  famous  through  Virgil's  poem  are 
Cape  Palinurus,  between  the  gulfs  of  Laus  and  Psestum,  so 
named  from  ^neas's  pilot,  who  there  fell  overboard  and  was 
drowned ;  the  islands  and  promontory  of  the  Sirenusoe,  the 
abode  of  the  Sirens  ;  Cape  Misenum,  at  the  northern  extremity 
of  the  Gulf  of  Naples,  the  burial-place  of  the  trumpeter 
Misenus;  Cunic^,  where  ^neas's  visit  to  the  Sibyl  gives 
occasion  to  one  of  the  finest  episodes  in  the  poem ;  and  lastly, 
Cajeta,  the  southeramost  promontory  of  Latium,  so  named 
after  the  nurse  of  ^neas. 

The    Trojans    are    supposed   to    have    finally  landed   at 

Laurentum,  some  ten  miles  southwards  of  the  mouth  of  the 

Tiber.     Here  the  prediction  was  fulfilled,  according  to  which 

the  place  where  they  consumed  their  tables — which  they  did 

here  either  by  eating  the  parsley  on  which  they  were  reposing, 

or  the  slices  of  bread  on  which  they  had  laid  their  meat — was 

to  be  the  term  of  their  wanderings.     To  the  spot  where  they 

landed  they  are  said  to  have  given  the  name  of  Troy ;   but 

any  village  of  that  name,  which  may  have  existed  there  in 

later  times,  was  probably  the  result  of  the  legend.     So  also 

Antenor,  who,  like  JEneas,  is  said  after  the  capture  of  Troy 

to  have  sailed  with  the  Heneti  to  the  top  of  the  Adriatic,  and 

to  have  established  there  the  Venetian  people,  is  related  to 

have  founded  a  town  named  Troja. 

When  ^neas  landed  in  Italy,  the  aborigines  or  native 
inhabitants  of  Latium,  near  the  spot,  at  all  events,  where  he 
disembarked,  were  ruled  by  King  Latinus,  the  fourth  of  a 
dynasty  whose  founder  was  Saturn.  The  reign  of  Saturnus 
-was  the  golden  age  of  Italy.     It  was  fabled  to  enjoy  all  Uie 

^  Apiid  Serv.  ad  ^En.  iv.  682 ;  v.  i. 


,■  s 

'.J 
A  ■ 


I'-i. 


THE   LEGEND    OF   ^NEAS. 


39 


blessings  of  civilization,  without  the  evils  which  it  brings  in 
its  train.  There  was  wealth  and  abundance,  but  it  was  all 
enjoyed  in  common ;  the  public  felicity  was  consequently 
undisturbed  by  theft  or  violence,  and  the  precautions  taken 
to  prevent  or  repress  them  were  utterly  unknown.  Saturnus 
had  his  dwelling  on  the  Capitoline  Hill,  which  hence  obtained 
the  name  of  ]\Ions  Saturnius.^  Over  against  him,  on  a  hill  on 
the  other  side  of  the  river,  dwelt  Janus,  a  still  more  ancient 
king  than  he,  and  apparently  belonging  to  the  aborigines, 
whereas  Saturnus  was  an  immigrant,  to  whom  Janus  extended 
his  hospitality.  Saturnus  was  succeeded  by  Picus,  and  Picus 
by  Faunus.  It  was  during  the  reign  of  Faunus  that  the 
Arcadian  Evander  came  to  Latium,  and  formed  a  settlement 
on  the  hill  next  Mons  Saturnius ;  which  by  some  is  thought 
to  have  derived  its  subsequent  name  of  Mons  Palatinus 
either  from  Pallantia,  a  daughter  of  Evander,  or  from  the 
Arcadian  town  of  Pallantium.^  Evander,  like  most  of  these 
ancient  founders,  was  descended  from  the  gods,  being  the  son 
of  Mercury  by  Carmenta,  an  Arcadian  nymph  and  prophetess, 
who  was  afterwards  regarded  with  great  veneration  by  the 
Eomans,  till  she  was  superseded  by  the  Sibyl. 

It  was  also  in  the  reign  of  Faunus,  and  only  a  few  years 
after  the  Arcadian  settlement,  that  Hercules  arrived  in  Italy, 
bringing  with  him  from  Hesperia  the  oxen  of  Geryon,  which 
he  was  conveying  to  xirgos.  Here  he  was  robbed  of  some  of 
them  by  Cacus,  a  ferocious  robber  of  the  Aventine,  a  legend 
so  prettily  told  in  the  verse  of  Ovid.  Dionysius  of  Ilalicar- 
nassus^  represents  Hercules  as  taking  possession  of  Mons 
Saturnius  ;  but  this  version  seems  at  variance  with  the  more 

1  Tliere  are  various  other  etjTnologics  ;  as  from  Pallas,  son  of  Hercules,  by 
Launa,  a  daughter  of  Evander  ;  from  Palanto,  either  mother  or  wife  of  King 
Latinus  ;  or  from  Palatium,  an  aboriginal  colony  near  Reate.  Others  seek 
the  origin  of  the  name  etymologically ;  as  from  halare,  or  palarCf  the  bleating 
or  the  wandering  of  sheep  ;  or  from  7>«?e<5,  a  stake,  supposing  the  hill  to  have 
been  originally  fortified  with  palisades.  But  perhaps  the  most  probable 
derivation  is  from  Pales,  the  god,  or  goddess,  of  shepherds  and  flocks.  The 
foundation  of  Rome  is  said  to  have  taken  place  on  the  festival  of  that  deity, 
the  Palilia,  celebrated  on  the  21st  of  April. 

8  Lib.  i.  c.  34,  scqq. 


40 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


FOUNDATION   OF   LAVINIUM. 


41 


J 


commonly  received  account.  The  legend  of  the  arrival  of 
Hercules  in  these  parts  made,  however,  a  deep  impression  on 
the  public  mind,  and  was  perpetuated  by  Eoman  institutions 
and  temples  in  his  honour. 

All  the  settlements  and  events  which  we  have  just  recorded 
occurred  before  the  time  of  the  Trojan  war.  It  w^as  in  the 
reign  of  Latinus,  the  successor  of  Faunus,  that  the  siege  of 
Troy  took  place  ;  and  when  ^Eneas  arrived  in  Latium,  Latinus 
was  already  an  old  man.  On  the  landing  of  the  Trojans,  he 
turned  his  arms  against  them.  Both  the  Trojans  and  the 
Latin  king  are,  however,  warned  in  a  dream  to  forbear  from 
hostilities ;  and  Latinus,  after  a  colloquy  with  ^neas,  agrees 
to  assign  to  him  forty  stadia  of  gi'ound  around  the  hill  wdiich 
he  had  occupied,  on  condition  that  he  should  lend  his  aid 
against  the  Paituli.  A  radius  of  forty  stadia,  or  five  miles  all 
round,  seems  to  be  about  the  usual  average  of  territory  pos- 
sessed by  these  primitive  cities. 

In  pursuance  of  this  treaty,  the  Trojan  leader  completes 
the  foundation  of  Lavinium,  at  a  spot  to  which  he  had  been 
directed  by  the  flight  of  a  wdiite  pregnant  sow,  which,  while 
he  was  offering  his  first  sacrifice,  had  escaped  from  the  hands 
of  the  priests,  and  rested  not  until  she  had  reached  this  place. 
The  new  town  was  called  Lavinium,  after  Lavinia,  the  daughter 
of  Latinus,  wdiom  ^neas  had  received  in  marriage.  Hence, 
as  the  first  stable  resting-place  of  the  Trojan  Penates  after 
their  long  w^anderings,  Lavinium  was  in  after  ages  a  place  of 
peculiar  veneration  for  the  Ptomans  ;  and  it  became  customary 
for  the  consuls,  praHors,  and  dictators  of  the  republic  to  offer 
sacrifice  there  when  they  entered  on  their  magistracies  to  the 
Penates  and  to  Yesta.^  These  deities  show  that  it  was  the 
first  home  of  the  Trojans  on  Italian  soil ;  and  they  could 
not  therefore  have  founded  Laurentum,  which  was  a  later 
settlement.  2 

P>ut  Lavinia  had  been  promised  to  Turnus,  king  of  the 
Eutuli,  a  neighbouring  people,  who,  enraged  at  being  thus 

^  Macrob.  Sat.  lib.  lii.  c.  4. 

2  So  Varro  :  "  Oppidum,  quod  ;?nm?m  conditnm  in  Latio  stirpis  HomansQ 
Lavinium  ;  nam  ibi  dii  penates  nostri. "— Ling.  Lat.  v.  §  144. 


-A; 
'A: 

IV  » 


%  ■ 

A.' 


lc? 


':i 


M\ 


supplanted  by  a  stranger,  made  war  upon  -^neas  and  Latinus. 
In  a  battle  which  ensued  the  Eutuli  were  defeated,  but  the 
Trojans   and  aborigines  purchased  their  victory  with  the  loss 
of  Latinus.     Turnus  and  the  Eutuli   now   had  recourse  to 
Mezentius,  king  of  the  Etruscan  city,  Caere,  who,  jealous  of 
the  intrusion  of  the  Trojans  into  Italy,  readily  joined  his  arms 
with  those  of  Turnus.     Such  is  the  account  of  Livy.^     But 
as  Caere  was  a  Greek  colony,  and  could  hardly  have  been 
founded  long  at  the  time  of  the  supposed  arrival  of  ^neas, 
the  story  of  Virgil  seems  to  be  constructed  with  more  proba- 
bility, who  represents  IVIezentius  as  having  been  driven  from 
his  dominions  by  his  subjects  on  account  of  his  cruelty  and 
tyranny,  and  as  having  taken  refuge  wdth  Turnus.'^     In  the 
face  of  this  danger,  ^.neas,  in  order  the  better  to  unite  his 
subjects,  gives  them  not  only  laws  in  common,  but  also  a 
common  name,  calling  them,  after  his  father-in-law%  Latins, 
^neas  defeats  Turnus  and  Mezentius,  but  is  himself  killed, 
or  disappears  in  some  mysterious  manner.    According  to  some 
accounts,  he  was  drowned  in  the  river  Xumicius,  and  at  all 
events  he  is  said  to  have  been  buried  on  its  banks.     After  his 
death  he  was  ranked  among  the  gods,  and  received  the  name 
of  "Jupiter  Indiges,"  or  the  native  Jupiter. 
y^    Ascanius,  the  son  of  ^neas  and  Lavinia,  was  not  of  an  age 
to  assume  the  reins  of  government  at  the  time  of  his  father's 
death,  and  his  mother  therefore  took  the  direction  of  affairs 
during  his  minority.     There  is  a  doubt,  how^ever,  as  we  have 
already  intimated,  wdiether  the  name  of  this  young  prince  w^as 
Ascanius  or  lulus,  and  whether  he  was  the  son  of  Creusa 
or  Lavinia.     Ascanius,  w  hen  he  came  of  age,  finding  that 
Lavinium  had  a  superabundant  population,  abandoned  it  to 
his  mother,  or    stepmother,    and    migrating  with  a  part   of 
the  people  to  INIons  Albanus,  which  is    distant  only  a  few 
miles  from  Lavinium,  founded  there,  according  to  a  usual 
custom  in  those  early  times,  a  new  city,  which,  from  its  being 
seated  on  a  long  ridge,  was  called  Alba  Longa.     This  event 

1  Lib.  i.  c.  2. 

*  iEn.  viii.  470,  seqq.     Virgil,  too,  with  more  consistency,  gives  the  town 
its  ancient  name  of  Agj-lla. 


^ 


J^ 


42 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


took  place  thirty  years  after  the  foundation  of  Lavinium, 
which  are  supposed  to  represent  the  thirty  pigs  littered  by 
the  sow.^  We  shall  not  inquire  into  the  natural  history  of 
this  miraculous  parturition.  Alba  Longa  is  thought  to  have 
occupied  the  ridge  wliich  overhangs  the  eastern  side  of  the 
lake  of  Albano,  where  massive  fragments  of  what  are  sup- 
posed to  have  been  its  walls  still  remain.  Its  name  is  by 
some  derived  from  the  white  sow;  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  the 
animal's  connexion  with  Alba,  which  more  probably  took  its 
name  from  the  nature  of  the  place.  Varro  combines  both 
these  etymologies.^  The  new  city  seems  to  have  been  founded 
without  molestation,  for  the  power  of  the  Latins,  particularly 
after  the  defeat  of  the  Etruscans,  had  so  much  increased,  that 
none  of  the  surrounding  peoples  ventured  to  attack  them. 
Agreeably  to  the  treaty  of  peace  with  the  Etruscans,  the  river 
Tiber,  then  called  the  Albula,  was  to  form  the  boundary 
between  the  two  nations.  / 
^  Ascanius  was  succeeded 'on  the  throne  by  his  son  Silvius 
Postumus ;  a  name  which  is  accounted  for  by  his  having  by 
some  chance  been  born  in  the  woods.  It  remained  the  family 
name  of  the  Alban  kings.  The  next  two  in  hereditary  suc- 
cession— for,  unlike  Eome,  Alba  was  an  hereditary  monarchy 
— were  ^neas  Silvius  and  Latinus  Silvius.  The  latter 
planted  some  colonies,  whose  inhabitants,  according  to  Livy,^ 
were  called  Prisci  Latini ;  but  it  seems  a  more  probable 
account  that  the  Prisci  Latini  were  the  more  ancient  Latins, 
before  the  foundation  of  Eome.^  The  successors  of  Latinus 
Silvius  were  Alba,  Atys  or  Epytus,  Capys,  Capetus  or 
Calpetus,  Tiberinus — who  gave  name  to  the  Tiber  from 
being  drowned  in  it — Agrippa,  Eomulus  or  Aremulus  Silvius, 
Aventinus — who  was  buried  on  the  Aventine,  and  bequeathed 
his  name  to  it — Procas,  Numitor,  and  Amulius. 

The  reigns  of  these  sixteen  Alban  and  Trojan  kings,  from 
^neas  to  Numitor,  both  inclusive,  occupy  a  period  of  432 

1  "  Propter    colorera   suis    et  loci    naturam   Alba   Longa  dicta." — Ling. 
Lat.  V.  §  144. 

2  Lib.  i.  c.  3 ;  cf.  Dionys.  i.  45. 

3  Paul.  Diac.  p.  226  ;  cf.  Serv.  ad  Mn.  v.  598. 


BIRTH    OF   ROMULUS   AND    REMUS. 


43 


V 


years,  ^  giving  an  average  of  twenty-seven  years  to  each  here- 
ditary reign.     If  we  add  this  term  to  753,  the  Varronian  era 

.(B.C.)  for  the  foundation  of  Eome,  we  have  1185  years,  which 
exceeds  by  one  year  the  era  of  Eratosthenes  for  the  capture 
of  Troy  (B.C.  1184),  and  makes  besides  no  allowance  for  the 
time  of  ^neas's  wanderings. 

/  Amulius  was  a  usurper  who  dethroned  his  elder  brother, 
Numitor,  put  Xumitor's  sons  to  death,  and  compelled  his 
daughter,  Ehea  Silvia,  to  become  a  vestal,  in  order  that  she 
might  have  no  offspring.  But  Silvia  was  deflowered  by  Mars 
and  brouglit  forth  male  twins :  whereupon  Amulius  cast  her 
into  prison,  and  directed  that  her  babes  should  be  drowned  in 
the  river.  It  chanced  that  the  Tiller  had  overflowed  its 
banks,  and  the  slaves  to  whom  had  been  committed  the 
execution  of  this  cruel  order,  exposed  the  boys  in  their  cradle 
at  a  spot  on  the  Palatine  Hill,  subsequently  marked  by  the 
Ficus  Euminalis.  The  neighbpurhood was  at  that  time  avast 
solitude.  Presently  the  flooding  waters  began  to  recede  into 
their  channel,  leaving  the  cradle  high  and  dry,  when  a  she- 
w^olf,  that  had  come  thither  to  slake  her  thirst,  was  attracted 
by  the  cries  of  the  children,  and  gave  them  suck.  At  this 
juncture,  Faustulus,  a  herdsman  of  the  king's,  arrived  at  the 
spot,  and  found  the  wolf  licking  the  babes  with  her  tongue. 
So  he  took  them  from  her,  and  carried  them  to  the  cattle- 
sheds,  where  he  gave  them  to  his  wife  Larentia  to  nurse. 
Some  have  explained  the  miraculous  story  by  saying  that 
Larentia  was  called  lupa,  or  wolf,  from  her  prostitute  life. 
X  As  the  boys  grew  up  they  took  to  hunting,  instead  of  sloth- 
fully  tending  the  cattle ;  and  having  thus  acquired  strength 
both  of  body  and  mind,  instead  of  pursuing  wild  beasts  they 
began  to  attack  robbers  laden  with  booty ;  for  Italy  seems  to 
have  been  almost  as  much  infested  with  brigands  in  those 
remote  ages  as  it  is  at  present.  What  spoil  they  took  they 
divided  with  the  other  shepherds ;  and  with  the  band  of 
youths  who  grew  up  with  them,  and  increased  in  number 
daily,  they  celebrated  various  sports  and  festivals.     Among 

^  The  years  are  given  by  Dionysius  and  Diodorus ;  Livy  says  nothing  about 
them. 


44 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


FOUNDATION    OF   ROME. 


45 


these  was  the  Lupercal,  which  was  celebrated  on  the  Pahitine 
Hill.  It  is  said  to  have  been  an  Arcadian  solemnity,  in- 
stituted by  Evander  when  he  had  possession  of  this  district. 
]N"aked  youths  ran  about  in  it  sportively  and  wantonly  in 
honour  of  the  Lycean  Pan,  afterwards  called  Inuus  by  the 
Eomans.  These  sports  recurred  at  certain  fixed  periods  ;  and 
the  brigands,  who  were  enraged  at  the  loss  of  their  prey, 
availed  themselves  of  the  oj^portunity  to  make  an  attack  on 
Eomulus  and  Pemus ;  for  such  were  the  names  of  the  two 
youths.  Piomulus  managed  to  defend  himself;  but  Ptemus 
they  took,  and  bi:oug]it  him  before  Amulius — for  they  some- 
times showed  themselves  in  the  towns  just  as  they  do  now — 
and  they  accused  him,  as  w^ell  as  Eomulus,  of  carrying  olf 
booty  from  Numitor's  fields.  They  appear  even  then  to 
have  stood  pretty  well  with  the  authorities,  for  their  story 
was  believed,  and  Eemus  was  handed  over  to  Numitor  for 
punishment. 

-/  Faustulus  had  all  along  suspected  that  the  youths  whom 
he  was  educating  were  of  the  royal  race  ;  but  he  determined 
not  to  reveal  his  thoughts  till  a  proper  occasion  should  present 
itself :  and  thinking  that  this  had  now  arrived,  he  opened  the 
matter  to  Eomulus.  Numitor  also,  on  hearing  the  story  of 
the  youths,  had  begun  to  suspect  the  same  thing ;  and  so  far 
from  punishing  Eemus,  was  on  the  point  of  acknowledging 
him  as  his  grandson.  Under  these  circumstances,  Eomulus 
having  collected  together  a  band  of  shepherds,  and  being 
aided  by  Eemus  with  another  band,  they  made  themselves 
masters  of  Alba,^  and  put  to  death  Amulius. 

Numitor,  at  the  beginning  of  the  tumult,  exclaiming  that 
enemies  had  entered  the  city,  had  drawn  away  the  Alban 
youth  under  pretence  of  defending  the  citadel ;  but  when  he 
beheld  Eomulus  and  Eemus,  after  they  had  killed  Amulius, 
approaching  him  with  congratulations,  he  at  once  called  a 
council,  to  whom  he  explained  the  whole  story  of  his  brother's 
wickedness,  the  origin,  education,  and  discovery  of  his  grand- 
sons, and  the  death  of  the  tyrant,  of  which  he  declared  him- 

1  Cic.  De  Rep.  lib.  ii.  c.  2. 


«  fr 


self  the  author.     Then  Eomulus  and  Eemus  saluted  Numitor 
as  kiniT,  and  the  whole  council  did  the  like. 

Numitor  being  thus  reinstated  in  his  kingdom,  Eomulus 
and  Eemus  were  seized  with  a  desire  to  build  a  city  at  the 
spot  where  they  had  been  exposed  and  educated.  The  project 
was  favoured  by  the  superabundant  multitude  of  Albans  and 
Latins ;  the  shepherds  also  were  numerous,  so  tliat  it  seemed 
probable  that  Lavinium  and  Alba  would  be  but  small  cities 
in  comparison  with  that  which  they  should  build.  But  these 
plans  were  disturbed  by  ambition,  the  hereditary  curse  of 
their  family.  Being  twins,  their  pretensions  as  to  which  of 
them  should  give  name  to  and  reign  over  the  new  city  could 
not  be  decided  by  priority  of  birth ;  so  they  resolved  to  con- 
sult by  means  of  augury  the  will  of  the  gods ;  to  which  end 
Eomulus  chose  the  Palatine  Hill  as  a  temple,  and  Eemus 
the  Aventine. 

As  they  thus  stood  surveying  tlie  heavens,  six  vultures 
appeared  to  Eemus ;  but  presently  after  a  dozen  showed 
themselves  to  Eomulus.  Hereupon  the  followers  of  each 
saluted  him  king :  Eemus,  because  the  vultures  had  appeared 
first  to  him ;  Eomulus,  because  he  had  seen  the  greater 
number.  Hence  a  quarrel  and  a  fight ;  blood  was  shed,  and 
amidst  the  tumult  Eemus  was  killed.  A  commoner  version 
of  the  story,  however,  is  that  Eomulus  slew  his  brother  for 
having  contemptuously  leapt  over  the  rising  walls  of  his  city. 
Eomulus,  thus  become  sole  master,  built  a  city  on  the 
Palatine,  and  named  it  after  himself. 

Such  was  the  most  commonly  received  legend  of  Eome's 
foundation  ;  into  the  different  versions  of  it  we  shall  not 
enter.  The  list  of  the  Alban  kings  has  all  tlie  appearance  of 
having  been  invented  in  order  to  carry  up  to  the  Trojan  times 
the  lineage  of  Eomulus ;  though  it  is  not  improbable  that  a 
dynasty  of  the  name  of  Silvius  may  have  reigned  at  Alba. 
The  story,  however,  acquired  a  firm  hold  on  the  popular 
belief,  and,  being  received  into  the  sacred  books,  to  doubt  it 
became  a  sort  of  heresy.  So  also  Valcntia,  the  equivalent 
Latin  name  of  Roma,  was  forbidden  to  be  whispered  ;  for  it 
might  have  betrayed  to  the  ignorant  the  recent  Greek  origin 


46 


HISTORY   OF   THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


of  the  city,  and  have  upset  the  story  of  its  Trojan  foundation 
through  the  Alban  dynasty. 

How  and  when  Rome's  foundation  legend  was  invented, 
what  grains  of  truth  there  may  be  at  the  bottom  of  it,  it  is 
impossible  to  say.  We  have  already  surmised  that  it  may 
have  found  its  way  into  the  Pontifical  Commentaries  at  a 
very  early  date ;  but  all  that  is  certainly  known  is,  that  it 
must  have  been  rooted  in  the  popular  mind  as  an  article  of 
historical  belief  at  least  as  early  as  the  year  of  Eome  458 
(B.C.  295),  since  in  that  year  the  ^diles  Cn.  and  Q.  Ogulnius 
caused  to  be  erected  at  the  Ficus  Ruminalis  images  of  Eomulus 
and  Eemus  sucking  the  wolf^  This  fact  at  once  upsets  Plu- 
tarch's account  ^  that  the  story  was  first  introduced  to  the 
Eomans  by  Fabius  Pictor,  who  took  it  from  one  Diodes  of 
Peparethos,  since  Fabius  Pictor  flourished  at  least  half  a 
century  later  than  B.C.  295.  Indeed,  as  Schwegler  remarks,^ 
it  has  all  the  characteristics  of  home  growth,  and  could  not 
possibly  have  been  of  Greek  invention.  Into  the  allegorical 
meanings  which  have  been  attributed  to  the  legend  we  shall 
not  enter ;  *  though  it  is  probable  enough  that  it  symbolizes 
in  general  the  warlike  character  of  Eomulus  and  the  early 

Eomans. 

The  testimony  of  all  antiquity  that  the  original  Eoman 
city  stood  upon  the  Palatine  has  been  confirmed  by  modern 
excavations  ;  and,  to  whomsoever  we  may  attribute  its  founda- 
tion, there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  on  this  hill  stood 
a  town,  or  citadel,  which  formed  the  proper  nucleus  of  Eome, 
and  was  in  process  of  time  developed  into  the  magnificent 
city  which  became  the  mistress  of  the  world. 

We  will  here  pause  a  moment  to  survey  the  general  con- 
dition of  Italy  at  this  period  ;  for  unless  we  obtain  a  correct 
notion  of  the  state  of  civilization  and  society  when  Eome  was 
founded,  we  shall  be  apt  to  form  very  incorrect  ideas  of  early 
Eoman  history. 

The  essential  step  towards  civilization — which  in  its  proper 
and  primary  signification  means   the  dwelling  together  in 

Liv.  X.  23.  2  In  Romul.  c.  3,  8.  ^  B.  i.  S.  412. 

*  The  German  WTiters  are,  of  course,  great  on  this  head 


GENERAL   CONDITION   OF   ITALY. 


47 


cities  and  communities — is  agriculture  ;  for,  without  the  sup- 
plies derived  from  this  source,  it  is  impossible  for  men  to  live 
together  in  any  great  numbers.  But,  having  these  supplies, 
they  begin  to  build  cities  for  their  mutual  protection;  the 
division  of  labour  is  established,  the  useful  arts  of  life  are 
invented,  and  by  degrees,  as  wealth  begins  to  accumulate  in  a 
few  hands,  and  thus  to  afford  the  means  of  leisure,  literature 
and  the  finer  arts  are  cultivated,  the  manners  of  society 
become  more  refined  and  polite,  and  violence  and  crime  are 
repressed  by  laws  and  civil  institutions.  But  it  is  soon  dis- 
covered that  the  accumulation  of  wealth  gives  l)irth  not  only 
to  domestic  fraud  and  violence,  but  also  to  foreign  aggression. 
Hence  a  wider  horizon  opens  on  the  view  of  rulers  and  legis- 
lators ;  they  become  politicians  as  well  as  lawgivers — that  is, 
they  begin  to  consider  the  relations  of  cities  and  communities 
to  one  another,  and  to  establish  alliances,  leagues,  unions,  and 
confederacies,  and  thus  arise  the  first  beginnings  of  a  State. 
The  third  and  last  step  in  what  may  be  called  the  political 
progress  of  civilization  is  the  formation  of  large  kingdoms 
and  empires.  At  the  time  when  Eome  was  founded,  neither 
Greece  nor  Italy  had  reached  this  stage.  -It  was  only  in  the 
East,  which  had  been  much  earlier  civilized,  that  great 
monarchies  had  arisen,  as  the  kingdom  of  Egypt  and  the 
Assyrian  and  Median  empires. 

At  the  period  alluded  to,  Italy  was  far  l^ehind  Greece  in 
political  development.  This  is  shown,  among  other  things, 
by  the  superabundant  population  of  the  Greek  cities,  which 
lonfr  before  and  lon^ij  after  the  foundation  of  Eome  led  them 
to  plant  colonies  in  Italy,  then  comparatively  uncivilized  and 
but  scantily  peopled.  And  though  Greece  had  not  yet  arrived 
at  that  stage  when  single  cities  are  swallowed  up  by,  and 
amalgamated  with,  a  great  empire ;  yet  this  perhaps  partly 
arose  from  Greek  habits  of  mind,  as  well  as  from  the  nature 
of  their  country,  whose  mountainous  character  and  numerous 
bays  helped  cities  to  maintain  their  independence.  Yet  they 
had  recognised  the  unity  of  the  Hellenic  race  by  a  community 
of  religious  festivals,  and  by  their  Amphictyonies. 

In  Italy  the  second  stage  of  political  existence  had  hardly 


48 


HISTORY   OF   THE    KINGS   OF   ROME. 


been  reached  at  the  time  when  Eome  was  founded,  except  in 
Etruria.     Even  in  that  country,  however,  though  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  Etruscan  confederacy  had  been  formed 
before  tlie  foundation  of  Eome,  the  different  cities  which  be- 
longed, or  were  nominally  subject  to  it,  appear  to  have  acted 
a  very  independent  part,  and  were  probably  not  called  upon 
to  perform  any  federal  duties,  except  when  some  extreme  and 
common  danger  threatened  the  well-being  of  the  whole  con- 
federacy.    This  may  be  seen  in  the  wars  waged  between  Eome 
and  A^eii,  in  which  the  latter  city  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  supported  by  the  Etruscan  confederacy,  even  when  the 
Eomans  deprived  it  of  great  part  of  its  territory.     We  hear 
also  of  a  Latin  League,  but  this  appears  to  have  been  of  the 
same,  or  even,  perhaps,   a  still  looser  description.     Of  the 
political   constitution  of  the  other   nations  which  bordered 
upon  Latium,  such  as  the  Sabines,  the  Hernici,  the  Volsci, 
and  others,  we  know  little  or  nothing  ;  but  it  seems  probable 
that  their  chief,  if  not  sole,  bond  of  union  lay  in  community 

of  race. 

We  have,  therefore,  to  figure  to  ourselves  Eome  in  its  early 
days  as  closely  surrounded  by  a  vast  number  of  small  yet 
virtually  independent  cities,  whose  political  views  were  almost 
entirely  confined  to  their  own  preservation  or  advancement. 
These  cities  had  all  been  established  before  Eome,  which,  as 
we  have  before  intimated,  was  probably  almost  the  last 
founded  in  Latium.  They  appear  to  have  been,  like  the 
original  Eome  itself,  small  places, — in  fact,  little  more  than 
modern  villages  of  a  few  thousand  inhabitants ;  though  we 
are  apt  to  form  a  higher  idea  of  their  importance  because  they 
were  walled  and  fortified,  and  were  in  general  ruled  by  a 
magistrate  who  had  the  title  of  "  king.''  Thus,  besides  the 
Alban  and  Eoman  kings,  we  hear  of  kings  of  such  places  as 
Ceenina,  Cures,  Ardea,  &c.  Even  Alba,  the  ancient  metropolis 
of  Latium,  was  so  small  a  city  that  all  its  population,  when 
transferred  to  Eome,  could  be  accommodated  on  the  Ca^lian 
Hill.  These  cities,  as  we  have  before  observed,  possessed  a 
territory  of  some  ten  miles  in  diameter ;  a  fact  which  we  not 
only  know  from  tradition,  but  of  which  we  may  immediately 


SMALLNESS    OF    ROMA   QUADRATA. 


49 


<^ 


h 


^^i 


i  'V  '■< . 


NtV 


convince  ourselves  by  inspecting  a  map  of  ancient  Latium, 
when  we  shall  see  that,  if  they  had  had  a  larger  territory,  there 
would  not  have  been  room  for  them. 

Thus  Strabo  points  out  that  what  were  originally  called 
the  towns  of  Collatia,  Antemnse,  Fidenoe,  Lavicum,  &c.  were 
only  thirty  or  forty  stadia  (four  or  five  miles)  distant  from 
Eome,  and  had  in  his  time  become  mere  villages  owned  by 
private  individuals.^ 

It  is  important  to  bear  these  circumstances  in  mind,  because 
some  authors  would  assign  for  the  growth  of  a  town  like  these 
as  long  a  period  as  would  be  necessary  for  the  development  of 
a  large  kingdom,  and  hence  have  been  led  to  regard  as  im- 
probable the  comparatively  rapid  progress  of  Eome. 

It  seems  probable  that  the  band  of  Eomulus,  including  the 
shepherds  whom  he  had  enlisted  in  it,  did  not  exceed  about 
1,000  men,  at  which  number  they  were  stated  by  Plutarch. ^ 
When  Dionysius  ^  calls  them  3,000  foot  and  300  horse,  he 
evidently  takes  that  number,  by  a  prolejms,  from  the  30 
curiae  of  100  men  each,  subsequently  established  by  Eomulus  ; 
for  such,  as  we  learn  from  Varro,  was  the  total  of  the  primi- 
tive Eoman  army  after  the  Sabine  union,  consisting  only  of 
one  legion,  to  which  each  of  the  three  tribes  contributed  1,000 
foot  soldiers,  and  100  horse.*  The  recent  excavations  on  the 
Palatine,  conducted  by  Signer  Eosa  for  Napoleon  III.,  have 
shown  that  the  Eomulean  city  was  confined  to  the  western 
portion  of  the  hill,  or  that  occupied  by  the  Farnese  Gardens ; 
and  the  same  fact,  as  the  author  has  endeavoured  to  prove  in 
another  work,^  is  further  shown  by  the  circumstance  that  all 
the  memorials  of  Eomulus  are  confined  to  this  district.     So 

^  vvv  Se  /cdJ/xat,  Krifffis  iSiiaruii/. —  Lib.  v.  c.  3,  s.  2. 

2  lu  Rom.  9. 

3  Lib.  ii.  c.  2.  Dionysius  (ii.  6)  makes  Romulus  establish  these  curiee  before 
the  amalgamation  of  the  Romans  with  the  Sabines ;  but  Livy  and  Cicero  agree 
that  it  was  done  afterwards. 

4  "  Milites,  quod  trium  milium  primo  legio  fiebat,  ac  singulae  tribus  Titien- 
sium,  Ramnium,  Lucerum  milia  singula  militum  mittebant." — Ling.  Lat.  v.  89. 
"  Turma,  quod  ter  deni  equites  ex  tribus  tribubus  Titiensium,  Ramnium, 
Lucerum  fiebant." — Ibid.  91. 

"  Hist,  of  the  City  of  Rome,  p.  1 8,  seq. 


50 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


small  an  area  would  hardly  have  sufficed  to  accommodate 
3,000  persons,  but  it  was  amj^ly  large  enough  to  serve  as 
a  fortress  or  citadel  for  some  thousand  men.  We  must 
remember  that  the  followers  of  Eomulus  were  probably  all 
young  men.  When  the  population  of  a  colony  such  as  that 
of  Laurentum,  or  at  whatever  place  on  the  coast  the  original 
Greek  settlement  may  have  been  made,  began  to  overflow  its 
narrow  boundaries — and  in  the  course  of  even  less  than  half 
a  century  this  might  easily  happen — it  was  the  youth  that 
went  forth  to  seek  for  themselves  new  homes.  The  Eomulean 
emigTation  was  forced  to  content  itself  with  the  site  of  Eonie 
for  their  settlement,  for  it  was  in  fact  the  only  choice  they 
had,  the  surrounding  country  being  now  fully  occupied  with 
cities.  But  from  the  nature  of  the  place,  and  with  the  help 
of  a  wall,  1,000  soldiers,  without  apparently  women  or  other 
incumbrances,  might  easily  defend  themselves  against  any 
force  which  a  neighbouring  town  might  have  thought  it  worth 
while  to  direct  against  them. 

Such,  then,  was  the  original  Kome  ;  the  western  half  of  the 
Palatine  Hill  witli  a  wall  erected  round  its  base  in  a  quad- 
rangular, or  rather  lozenge-like,  form ;  whence  the  name  of 
Roma  Quadrata.  The  wall,  according  to  the  well-known 
description  of  Tacitus,^  was  built  with  Etruscan  rites;  the 
pomoerium,  or  sacred  space  around  it,  being  marked  out  by  a 
furrow  made  with  a  plough  drawn  by  a  cow  and  a  bull ;  the 
clods  being  carefully  thrown  inwards,  and  the  plough  being 
lifted  over  the  profane  spaces  necessary  for  the  gates ;  whence, 
according  to  Cato,  the  name  of  porta,  a  joortaiido,  because  the 
plough  was  carried.  2  We  are  thus  to  consider  a  city  founded 
with  these  religious  rites  as  a  sacred  enclosure,  in  fact  a 
templum,  whose  limits,  the  pomcerium,  marked  the  extent  of 
the  city's  auspices.^     This  enclosure  was  under  the  protection 

1  Ann.  xii.  24.  2  Ap.  Isidor.  xv.  2,  3. 

3  A  tcmiilum  terrestre  was  always  of  a  square  form — irXivQiov,  Pint.  Rom. 
22  ;  Cam.  32  ;  Nagele,  Studien,  S.  122  ;  ap.  Schwegler,  B.i.  S.  448  ;  Anm.  12. 
But  there  was  also  within  the  Palatine  city,  in  the  Area  Apollinis,  a  7nundus, 
or  small  square  walled  place,  in  which  were  deposited  things  considered  to 
te  of  good  omen  in  founding  a  city  ;  which  place  was  also  called  Roma  Quad- 
rata,    (Fest.  p.  258.) 


THEORY  OF  A  COMMERCIAL  EMPORIUM. 


51 


of  a  presiding  deity,  or  deities,  as  Eome  was — or  at  all  events 
the  Tarquinian  Eome — under  that  of  Jupiter,  Juno,  and 
Minerva.  So  also  Veii  was  under  the  safeguard  of  Juno,  and 
could  not  be  taken,  it  was  thought,  till  the  deity  had  given 
her  consent. 

Such  was  the  original  Eome;  a  little  fortress  on  a  hill. 
That  it  could  ever  have  entered  the  head  of  any  writer  that 
such  a  city  founded  in  such  a  place  could  have  been  intended 
for  a  great  commercial  emporium,  as  is  maintained  in  a  work 
that  has  attained  great  popularity  both  in  this  country  and  in 
Germany,^  surpasses  all  belief,  and  seems  to  betray  total  want 
of  historical  judgment.  A  mixed  race  of  shepherds,  we  are 
told,  partly  Latin,  partly  Sabine,  and  partly  of  another  nation 
represented  under  the  name  of  Luceres,  but  also  supposed  to 
be  Latin,  had  long  dwelt  together  in  concord  and  amity  on 
these  hills,  till  at  length  this  pastoral  people  resolve  to  turn 
merchants.  They  choose  for  their  place  of  commerce  a  hill- 
top, which,  though  it  is,  indeed,  near  the  Tiber,  yet  on  that 
side,  and  indeed  on  three  sides,  was  a  mere  swamp,  subject  to 
continual  inundations,  wliich  could  never  have  presented  any 
convenient  landing-place,  or  wharf,  at  all  events  till  it  was 
drained  by  the  Cloaca  Maxima,  That  this  sewer,  which  still 
remains  one  of  the  material  evidences  of  early  Eome,  should 
have  been  coeval  with  the  foundation  of  the  city  will,  we 
presume,  be  hardly  maintained  even  by  those  who  reject  aU 
historical  tradition.  Indeed,  Dr.  Mommsen  is  inclined  to 
assign  it,  at  least  in  its  finished  state,  to  the  republican  times,^ 
and  consider  the  Palatine  in  the  regal  period  to  have  been 
almost  entirely  surrounded  with  marsh.  A  fine  situation  for 
a  great  commercial  city ! 

Dr.  Mommsen's  account  of  the  origin  of  the  founder  and 
inhabitants  of  the  city  is  just  as  incredible  as  that  of  the  city 
itself.  He  accepts  the  tradition  of  early  Eoman  history  that 
there  must  have  been  a  union  between  a  Eoman  and  a  Sabine 

1  Dr.  Mommsen's  Hist,  of  Rome,  B.  i.  ch.  4. 

*  B.  i.  ch.  5,  p.  47.  Dr.  M.,  who  does  not  even  know  the  number  or 
names  of  the  kings,  yet  is  certain  that  peperino  was  not  employed  in  building 
in  their  x>eriod ! 

e2 


52 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROMK. 


race.  The  evidence  is  here  too  strong  for  him  ;  but  he  rejects 
the  method  in  which  tradition  tells  us  it  was  accomplished, 
and  invents  one  of  his  own,  which  is  not  a  hundredth  part  so 
probable,  or  rather  which  is  utterly  incredible. 

"  That  the  Eamnians,"  says  Dr.  Mommsen,^  "  were  a  Latm 
stock,  cannot  be  doubted,  for  they  gave  their  name  to  the  new 
Roman  commonwealth,  and  therefore  must  have  substantially 
determined  the  nationality  of  the  united  community." 

That  in  a  certain  sense  the  Eamnians  were  a  Latin  stock 
we  wdll  allow.     That  is,  they  were  a  neio  Latin  stock,  arising 
from  the  fusion  of  a  tolerably  recent  Greek  colony  with  the 
people  of  that  part  of  Latium  where  they  settled.     That  the 
Eamnians  gave  name  to  Eome  we  will  also  allow,  but  not  in 
the  sense  that  the  author  means.     We  do  not  believe  that  the 
words  Ramnes  and  Romani  are  identical  because  both  have 
an  r  and  an  m.     Ramnis  or  Ramnes  is  evidently  a  Greek 
name,  'Payu^voO?,  the  last  syllable  having  become  Latinized, 
just  as  TTou?  becomes  pes.      We  shall  not  claim  for  these 
Eamnes  an  origin  from  the  Attic  deimis  Ehamnus ;  although 
there  is  a  tradition  which  might  render  such  an  origin  not 
altogether  improbable.     Emigrants  from  Athens,   it  is  said, 
went  first  to  Sicyon  and  Thespia,  whence  a  large  portion  of 
them  afterwards  proceeded  to  Italy,  and  founded   on  the 
Palatine  Hill  a  city  named   Valentia ;   which  name,  when 
Evander  and  ^neas  with  many  Greeks  arrived  at  the  same 
place,  was  changed  into  Roma.     However  absurd  this  story 
may  be  thought,  which,  by  putting   the  Latin  name   first, 
places  the  cart  before  the  horse,  it  nevertheless  shows  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  antiquity,  its  etymon  was  the  Greek  word 
pw/i77,  and  not  the  gentile  appellative  Eamnis.     This  account 
is  given  by  Festus  ^  from  an  author  of  Cum^ean  history ;  who, 
after  the  Latins,  may  be  thought  to  have  had  the  best  infor- 
mation about  Eome.     Without,  however,  claiming  an  Attic 
origin  for  the  Eomans,  it  is  enough  that  their  name,  before 
the  founding  of  the  city,  was  evidently  Greek,  derived  at  all 
events,  probably  like  that  of  the  Attic  borough,  from  pdfMvo<:, 
brier;  a  characteristic  of  a  country  which  may  have  given 

1  Vol.  i.  p.  45,  Engl,  transl.  ^  y^c.  Romara,  p.  266. 


RAMNIANS   AND    ROMANS. 


53 


name  to  more  than  one  town  in  Greece.  We  agree  therefore 
with  Dr.  Mommsen,  that  the  Eomans,  before  the  foundation 
of  their  city,  were  called  Eamnians ;  probably  also  after,  by 
those  who  wished  to  distinguish  the  Eomans  according  to 
their  original  tribes ;  but  we  cannot  admit  that  Romani  comes 
from  Ramnes,  when  it  is  evidently  the  ethnic  name  of  those 
who  dwelt  in  Roina. 

AVe  also  agree  that  the  Eamnians  "  substantially  determined 
the  nationality  of  the  united  community ; "  though,  according 
to  Dr.  Mommsen's  hypothesis,  it  is  strange  how  he  could 
have  come  to  that  conclusion.  For  he  tells  us  in  the  next 
page — "It  w^ould  appear,  therefore,  that  at  a  period  very 
remote,  when  the  Latin  and  Sabellian  stocks  were,  beyond 
question,  far  less  sharply  contrasted  in  language,  manners, 
and  customs  than  were  the  Eomans  and  the  Samnites  of  a 
later  age,  a  Sabellian  community  entered  into  a  Latin  canton 
union ;  and  as  in  the  older  and  more  credible  traditions,  with- 
out exception,  the  Tities  take  precedence  of  the  Eamnians, 
it  is  probable  that  the  intruding  Tities  compelled  the  older 
Eamnians  to  accept  their  synoikismos!' 

According  to  this  account,  the  Tities,  or  Sabines,  are  the 
conquering  race ;  for  it  is  only  those  who  are  superior  who 
can  compel  others  to  a  synoikismos ;  as  Athens  did  in  Attica. 
Yet  we  have  just  been  told  that  it  was  the  Eamnians  who 
determined  the  nationality ;  and  the  author  goes  on  to  com- 
pare this  Sabine  invasion  with  the  voluntary  settlement  of 
Attus  Clauzus,  or  Appius  Claudius,  with  his  few  thousand 
followers,  in  the  Eoman  territory  many  centuries  afterwards, 
when  they  were  received  by  the  Eomans  and  formed  into  a 
rural  tribe ;  that  is,  he  compares  a  people  who  came  in  suffi- 
cient nimibers  to  be  victorious,  and  who  must  have  had  all 
the  power  and  pride  of  conquerors,  with  a  small  tribe  form- 
ing not  a  twentieth  part  of  the  Eoman  people,  who  came 
into  their  territory  as  refugees,  and  were  glad  to  be  received 
there ! 

How  far  the  Latin  and  Sabellian  stocks  differed  in  lan<][ua(Te 
and  customs,  "  at  a  very  remote  period,"  we  do  not  pretend  to 
tell ;  nor  do  we  believe  that  Dr.  Mommsen  can  tell.    We  only 


w 


54 


HISTORY  OF  THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


ORIGINAL  ROMAN   BOUNDARIES. 


55 


see  that  his  views  are  not  always  consistent,  but  vary  accord- 
ing to  the  point  that  he  wishes  to  prove.  For,  in  his  second 
chapter,  in  which  he  treats  of  the  most  ancient  immigrations 
into  Italy,  and  therefore,  we  presume,  of  a  very  rem.ote  period, 
he  separates  the  Latins  from  all  the  other  Italian  races,  which 
he  classes  under  the  term  Umbro-Sanmite,  and  tells  us  that 
the  Latin  dialect  formed  "  a  marked  contrast "  to  the  dialects 
of  these  races.  ^ 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  pursue  in  detail  a  theory  which 
rests  on  nothing  but  the  wildest  conjectures.     We  shall  only 
briefly  observe  that  if,  as  Dr.  Mommsen  supposes,  the  Sabines 
had  been  the  superior  race  in  prse-Eoman  times — though, 
indeed,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  whether  he  considers  them 
superior  or  inferior — no  town  taking  its  name  from  the  Eomans 
would  have  been  built.     Further,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose 
that  such  a  city  should  have  been  founded  by  the  Latin  con- 
federacy for  trading  purposes ;  because,  as  we  have  said,  the 
Latin  League  was  but  very  loosely  bound  together,  and  would 
not  have  united  for  such  a  purpose ;  and  because  during  the 
early  days  of  the  city  we  can  trace  no  connexion  between  it 
and  the  Latins.     Had  there  been  this  connexion,  would  the 
Latin  Confederacy  have  suffered  the  Sabines  to  oppress  the 
Eamnians,  and,  as  we  are  told  they  did,  force  upon  them  their 
s7jnoikis7nos  ?    But  the   strongest  reason  against  this   com- 
mercial hypothesis  is  perhaps  the  fact  of  the  total  repugnance 
of  early  Eoman  manners  and  institutions  to  a  commercial 
life ;  though  in  process  of  time,  and  when  she  had  extended 
her  empire  to  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber,  Eome  to  some  extent 
engaged  in  foreign  commerce. 

Dr.  Mommsen,  indeed,  is  of  opinion  that  the  Eomans  pos- 
sessed from  the  earliest  times  the  country  on  both  sides  of  the 
Tiber  down  to  the  sea,  as  well  as  the  port  of  Ostia ;  though 
we  do  not  see  what  strength  this  adds  to  his  commercial 
theory.     According  to  him,  one  of  the  reasons  for  choosing 

1  "Innerhalb  des  Italischen  Sprachstammes  aber  tritt  das  Lateinische 
wieder  in  einen  bestimmten  Gegensatz  zu  den  umbrisch-samnitischen  Dialek- 
ten." — B.  i.  S.  11  ;  cf.  Transl.  i.  p.  63.  We  have  already  seen  that  both 
Samnites  and  Sabines  were  Sabellian,  and  in  fact  almost  identical. 


*•. 


»f^ 


Eome  as  an  entrepot  was,  that  being  so  high  up  the  river  it 
was  out  of  the  way  of  pirates.  But  if  Ostia  was  to  be  a  landing- 
place— and  if  the  assumption  does  not  mean  that,  it  means 
nothing — this  advantage  vanishes  at  once. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  and  on  Dr.  Mommsen's  own 
showing,  the  Eomans  could  not  have  originally  possessed  the 
territory  down  to  the  sea.  "We  have  evidence,"  he  says, 
"  more  trustworthy  than  that  of  legend,  that  the  possessions 
on  the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber  must  have  belonged  to  the 
original  territory  of  Eome ;  for  in  this  very  quarter,  at  the 
fourth  milestone  on  the  later  road  to  the  port,  lay  the  grove 
of  the  creative  goddess  (Dea  Dia),  the  primitive  chief  seat  of 
the  Arval  Festival,  and  Arval  Brotherhood  of  Eome."  ^ 

Now  the  Ambai^alia  were  a  festival  of  boundaries,  and 
even  in  the  time  of  the  Empire,  when  Eome  was  mistress  of 
the  greater  part  of  the  world,  they  were  celebrated  at  the 
mnginal  boundaries  of  the  Eoman  State.  Thus  we  learn  from 
Strabo'  that,  in  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Tiberius,  the  Am- 
barvalia  continued  to  be  celebrated  at  various  places  on  the 
borders  of  the  primitive  Ager  Eomanus,  and  among  them  at 
Festi,  which  lay  on  the  road  to  Alba,  about  five  or  six  miles 
from  Eome.  The  grove  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber,  at 
the  fourth  milestone,  shows,  therefore,  that  the  primitive 
Eoman  territory  did  not  reach  a  quarter  of  the  way  to  the  sea. 
And  this  agrees  with  the  account  of  Livy,^  who  tells  us  that 
the  Veientines  ceded  to  Eomulus  a  tract  on  the  right  bank  of 
the  Tiber ;  and  that  the  whole  territory  down  to  the  sea  was 
not  acquired  till  the  time  of  Ancus.  According  to  tradition, 
it  was  Eomulus  who  founded  the  Arval  Brotherhood,  of  which, 
indeed,  he  is  himself  said  to  have  been  a  member. 

On  modes  of  thus  reconstructing  ancient  history  like 
that  adopted  by  Dr.  Mommsen,  Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis  has 
passed  a  very  sensible  judgment,  which  we  shaU  here  extract. 
In  such  attempts,  he  observes,  "  We  are  called  upon  to  believe 
that  a  modern  historian  is  able  to  recast  the  traditions  which 
were  thus  preserved  through  the  dark  ages  of  Eome,  and  to 


1  Engl.  Trans,  vol.  i.  p.  49. 


2  Lib.  V.  c.  3,  s.  2. 


3  Lib.  i.  15,  33. 


56 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


extract  the  truth  which  is  imbedded  in  them,  although  in 
their  existing  form  they  are  false.  We  are  first  to  believe  that 
a  tradition  was,  in  substance,  faithfully  conveyed  from  the 
eighth  century  before  Christ  to  the  Second  Punic  War,  and 
then  to  believe  that,  although  it  is  not  literally  true,  it  is 
typical  of  some  truth  which  can  be  discerned  under  its  cover- 
ing for  the  first  time  by  a  writer  of  our  own  age.  This 
doctrine  of  historical  types  is  more  difficult  to  reconcile  with 
reason  and  experience  than  even  the  supposition  that  some 
authentic  facts  may  have  been  preserved  through  a  long  series 
of  years,  in  an  unaltered  state,  by  oral  tradition.  It  is  in  fact 
nothing  more  than  an  ingenious  and  refined  application  of 
the  rationalist  method  of  interpreting  the  marvellous  legends 
of  mythology,  so  much  employed  by  the  ancient  historians. 
It  is  only  another  form  of  the  system  of  reduction,  by  which 
the  god  jVIars  in  the  sacred  grove  was  converted  into  an  armed 
man  in  disguise,  who  overpowered  Ilia,  and  the  wolf  of 
Romulus  was  transmuted  into  a  courtesan.  One  imitation 
may  be  executed  by  a  coarse  and  clumsy  hand ;  the  other 
may  be  performed  with  all  the  resources  and  skill  of  modern 
learning;  but  still  they  are  both  no  better  than  historical 
forgeries."  ^ 

Nothing  can  be  truer  than  these  remarks,  in  their  general 
scope.  We  must  either  take  the  early  Roman  history  as  it 
stands — or  nearly  as  it  stands,  rejecting  only  those  figments 
which  are  evidently  the  natural  product  of  an  illiterate  and 
superstitious  age — or  we  must  abandon  it  altogether,  as  no 
better  than  a  romance  from  first  to  last.  Our  only  hope  of 
escape  from  this  last  alternative,  lies  in  the  circumstance  that 
it  may  not  rest  so  entirely  on  oral  tradition  as  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
supposes. 

Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  440,  seq. 


57 


SECTION  III. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ROMULL'S. 


THE     PERSONALITY     OF     ROMULUS. 

Romulus,  it  is  said,  is  no  real  person,  but  a  fictitious 
eponymous  hero,  and  this  is  shown  by  the  etymology  of  his 
name.  The  name  of  Roma  could  not  have  been  derived  from 
the  name  of  Romulus,  as  we  are  told  by  ancient  authors,  but, 
vice  versa,  the  name  of  Romulus  must  have  come  from  Roma. 
The  former  derivation  is  a  grammatical  impossibility  ;  for  the 
name  of  a  city  taken  from  that  of  Romulus  would  have  been 
Romulea,  or  Romulia,  not  Roma.  Had  tradition  called  Rome's 
founder  Romanus,  instead  of  Romulus,  nobody  would  have 
doubted  for  an  instant  that  it  was  a  name  derived  from  the 
city.  But  Romulus  is  just  as  much  a  derivative  from  it  as 
Romanus,  and  has  in  fact  the  same  meaning.  Thus  we  find 
in  the  poets  such  expressions  as  "  Romula  tellus,"  "  Romula 
hasta,"  "  Romula  gens,"  "  Romula  virtus,"  &c.  with  the  same 
meaning  as  Romana.  The  city  Roma,  therefore,  must  have 
existed  before  the  man,  or  reputed  man,  Romulus,  and  con- 
sequently he  could  not  have  been  its  founder.^ 

Remarks. — To  this  we  answer,  that  the  real  name  of  Rome's 
founder  was  not  Romulus,  hut  Romus  ('Pw^og).  He  was  a  Greek, 
or  at  most  the  second  in  descent  from  a  Greek,  and  is  called  Romus 
in  most  of  the  Greek  traditions.  We  will  here  venture  a  suggestion, 
that  the  story  of  the  city  having  been  founded  by  twins  may  perhaps 
have  had  its  origin  in  this  double  name  of  Romulus.  Romus,  in- 
deed, seems  to  have  been  identical  not  only  with  Romulus,  hut  also 
with  Remus,  which  are  only  different  forms  of  the  same  name.  Thus 
the  latter  is  called  Romus,  as  we  have  seen  above,^  in  the  Latin 
tradition  given  by  Dionysius  of  the  foundation  of  Rome.  In  Greek 
writers  the  form  Remus  hardly  ever  appears ;  the  deeds  attributed 


^  Schweglcr,  1  Abth.  B.  viii.  s.  9. 


'  Page  24. 


58 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


NAME  AND   REALITY    OF   ROMULUS. 


5^ 


to  him  are  done  by  Romus.    Cicero,  in  his  account  of  the  foundation 
of  Eome,^  makes  no  mention  of  Remus,  though  he  is  aware  that 
Romulus  had  a  brother  of  that  name  ;  and  the  Roman  poets^  fre- 
quently consider  Remus  as  identical  with  Romulus :  as  "  Remi  ne- 
potes,"  "  domus  Remi,"  "  turba  Remi,"  "  plebs  Remi,"  &c.2   Romulus 
is  only  a  Latinized  form  of  Romus.     It  was  natural  for  the  Latins  to 
give  it  this  form  ;  not  so  much,  perhaps,  as  Servius  says,  as  a  diminu- 
tive and  by  way  of  endearment,^  but  because  such  a  termination  was 
agreeable  to  the  genius  of  their  language,  as  is  shown  by  the  many 
words  they  have  with  such  an  ending.    Like  their  descendants,  the 
modern  Italians,  they  loved  parole  sdrucciole— long,  slippery,  well 
vocalized  words  that  tripped  nimbly  and  smoothly  off  the  tongue. 
Thus  they  changed  the  Greek  word  circus  into  circulus,  just  as  they 
had  the  name  of  Romus.     The  name  of  Porta  Romanula,  instead  of 
Romana,  for  the   ancient   gate   on   the  Palatine,   affords   another 
striking  instance.      So  also  Tusculum,   Janiculum,   several   rivers 
Albula,  &c.,  all  names  belonging  to  early  Latin  times.     Romulus, 
however,  as  the  Latins  called  him,  kept  closer  to  his  own  Greek 
name  of  Romus  when  he  gave  it  to  his  newly-founded  city ;  for 
•Pw/xoc,  if  not  itself  actually  derived  from  pwfxrj,  was  at  all  events  near 
enough  to  suggest  it.    Had  his  name  been  derived  from  the  city  by 
Latin  inventors  of  a  later  age,  he  would  doubtless  have  been  called 
Romanus,  to  make  him  the  eponymous  father  of  the  Romans,  just 
as  King  Latinus  was  of  the  Latins. 

We  do  not,  therefore,  see  any  valid  etymological  grounds  for 
rejecting  the  almost  universal  testimony  of  antiquity,  that  Rome 
was  named  after  its  founder.  We  might  further  urge  how  incre- 
dible it  is  that  the  Romans,  who  possessed  from  the  earliest  times 
the  art  of  writing,  should  have  forgotten  in  the  course  of  a  century 
or  so  the  name  of  their  founder,  and  been  obliged  to  invent  a  new 
one  for  him.  Why,  any  of  the  neighbouring  cities,  which  were  in 
existence  long  before  Rome,  could  in  all  probability  have  refreshed 
their  memories,  had  it  been  necessary. 

As  Romulus  is  a  fictitious  person,  so  all  the  deeds  attributed  to 
him  are  mere  abstractions.  That  the  founder  of  Rome  institutes  its 
fundamental  mihtary  and  political  regulations,  wages  the  first  wars 

1  De  Rep.  ii.  c.  2,  seq. 

2  See  Catull.  Ivi.  5 ;  Prop.  iv.  1,  5;  Juv.  x.  73  ;  Mart.  x.  76,  4. 

3  "Utpro  Romo  Romulus  diceretiir,  blandimenti  genere  factum  est,  quod 
gaudet  diminutione." — Ad  ^n.  i.  273. 


.?■; 


— ■■*"» 


--. 


1.K 


\4'- 


with  the  neighbouring  cities,  celebrates  the  first  triumph,  wins  the 
first  spolia  opima, — all  these,  it  is  said,  are  abstractions  arising  from 
the  idea  of  a  founder  of  warlike  Rome.^ 

From  this  idea,  then,  we  learn,  at  all  events,  that  the  old  Romana 
did  not  consider  their  early  city  to  have  been  a  commercial  one. 

But  on  what  grounds  are  we  to  assume  the  events  alluded  to 
to  have  been  mere  abstractions  ?  The  founder  of  every  city  must, 
we  presume,  lay  down  some  rules  of  civil  and  military  conduct ;  it 
is  not  unlikely  that  he  may  have  to  contend  with  offended,  jealous, 
and  suspicious  neighbours ;  it  is  far  from  improbable  that  Romulus 
may  have  been  in  general  victorious,  otherwise  we  do  not  see  how 
his  infant  state  could  have  maintained  itself;  and  if  he  was  vic- 
torious, it  is  not  altogether  incredible  that  he  may  have  instituted 
the  triumph.  To  assert  that  these  acts  were  not  real,  but  invented, 
is  to  beg  the  whole  question.  It  is  a  good  specimen  of  that  magis- 
terial ex  cathedra  dictation  which  too  often  characterises  German 
critics— as  if  they  had  just  come  down  from  the  skies.  The  only 
colour  for  it  must  be  derived  from  the  assumption  that  Romulus 
was  a  fictitious  personage,  when  his  deeds  must  also  be  fictitious. 
But  we  have  already  seen  that  the  arguments  to  prove  him  so  are 
altogether  inconclusive. 

iN'or  do  the  miraculous  circumstances  wliich  are  said  to  have 
attended  his  birth  and  death  prove  him  to  have  been  an  unhistorical 
person. 

Besides  abstraction,  it  is  said,  the  other  element  that  goes  to 
make  up  the  history  of  Romulus  ifi  myth  2 — the  wolf  that  gives 
suck,  the  Lupercal,  the  Ruminal  fig-tree,  the  stepfather  Paustulus, 
the  stepmother  Acca  Larentia,  the  laceration  of  Romulus  at  the 
Goat-lake  on  the  day  of  the  Caprotine  Xones.  These  mythological 
ideas  are  evidently  taken  from  the  worship  of  Paunus  Lupercus, 
who,  as  we  must  assume,  had  the  cognomen  of  Rumus,  or  Ruminus. 
This  fecundating  goat-god,  Ruminus-Faunus,  appears  in  the  tra- 
ditional legend  to  have  been  fused  into  one  person  with  Romulus, 
the  eponymous  founder  of  Rome. 

Here  it  occurs  to  ask,  if  the  Romans  considered  Romulus  to  be 
identical  with  Faunus,  how  came  it  that  they  also  made  him  a  mere 
name,  derived  from  the  name  of  the  city,  as  we  have  just  been  told 
they  did  ?     The  two  views  are  utterly  incompatible. 

The  whole  induction,  it  will  be  seen,  rests  on  two  conjectures  : 


»  Schweglcr,  B.  i.  S.  425. 


Ibid.  seq. 


60 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ETYMOLOGIES    OF   ROMULUS   AND    ROMA. 


61 


first,  that  Faunus  had  the  name  of  Eumiis ;  second,  that  Rum  us  is, 
or  was  supposed  to  be,  identical  with  Romus,  or  Romuhis. 

If  we  ask  for  the  evidence  for  Faunus  having  Lome  the  name  of 
Rumus,  or  Ruminus,  we  are  told  ^  that  two  other  German  authors, 
Schwenck  and  Zinzow,  had  "  conjectured "  the  same  thing ;  and 
that  Schwegler  himself  had  "  conjectured,"  a  few  pages  before,  that 
Rumia,  or  Rumina,  was  perhaps  identical  with  Fauna  Luperca. 
With  such  evidence  are  these  critics  contented  who  reject,  on 
most  occasions,  the  much  more  sensible  evidence  of  the  Roman 
historians  ! 

If  we  inquire  how  Romulus  is  connected  with  rumus,  we  find, 
indeed,  traces  in  the  ancient  authors  of  some  such  connexion,  or 
rather  confusion.  Thus  Festus  ^  sajs  that  some  derived  his  name 
from  the  Ficus  Ruminalis ;  others — which  is  nearly  the  same  thing 
— from  the  teat  {ruma,  or  rumis)  of  the  wolf  by  which  he  had  been 
nourished.  Plutarch  has  a  notice  to  the  same  effect.  Other  authors 
reverse  the  derivation,  as  Servius,^  who  says  that  the  Ficus  Rumi- 
nalis was  named  after  Romulus;  and  Livy  gives  a  notice  to  the 
effect  that  the  Ficus  Ruminalis  is  a  con-up tion  of  Romularis.*  So 
that  the  theory  gains  nothing  here ,  or  rather,  the  balance  of  evi- 
dence is  against  it. 

It  would  be  mere  learned  trifling  and  battling  with  the  wind 
to  proceed  with  such  an  inquiry.  It  is,  of  course,  necessary  to 
Schwegler's  theory  to  connect  ruma  with  Rome.  Roma,  he  says, 
has  a  name  of  the  same  meaning  with  Palatium ;  it  is  ruma,  the 
"  nourisher,"  just  as  the  name  of  the  Palatine  is  derived  remotely 
from  the  shepherd-goddess  Pales,  whose  root  is  pal,  from  the 
Sanscrit  pa  (to  nourish,  feed).^  But,  viewed  with  regard  to  its 
meaning,  Ruma,  the  '*  nourisher,"  is  by  no  means  so  appropriate 
a  name  for  a  citadel  as  Roma  (strength,  a  stronghold) ;  and,  viewed 
et^Tnologically,  it  requires  the  u  to  be  changed  into  o,  while  Roma 
requires  no  change  at  all,  ^^^a  being  the  old  Greek  form  for  pw/xj;. 
The  same  remark  applies  to  Dr.  Mommsen's  odd  derivation  from 
Rama,^  and  this  apparently  from  ramus ;  since  he  considers  it  to 
mean  the  wood,  or  bush-town.  Surely,  the  Greek  name,  p{^^y), 
adopted  by  Niebuhr,  is  a  hundredfold  more  appropriate  than  these. 

1  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  426  ;  Anm.  26.  2  p   266. 

3  Ad  iEn.  viii.  90  ;  cf.  Pint.  Rom.  4,  6. 

**  *•  Ubi  nunc  ficus  ruminalis  est  (Romularem  vocatam  ferunt)."— i.  4 

">  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  420,  444  ;  Anm.  10. 

"  P.  i.  c.  4. 


■.¥:A 


Of  course  all  or  most  of  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
birth  of  Romulus  are  fabulous  ;  we  have  already  admitted  it.  Livy 
had  said  so  before  us ;  but  he  does  not  conclude,  on  that  account, 
that  all  the  circumstances  of  his  reign  are  fabulous.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  how  the  legends  of  Romulus's  birth  and  education  may  have 
arisen ;  but  it  is  not  improbable  that  they  may  have  sprung  from 
old  traditions  connected  with  the  Palatine  Hill.  It  would  be  just 
as  ii'rational,  however,  to  reject  the  historical  existence  of  Romulus, 
because  these  traditions  have  been  tacked  to  his  name,  as  it  would 
be  to  doubt  the  existence  of  Edwy  and  Elgiva,  because  the  monkish 
legends  attribute  some  supernatural  acts  to  St.  Dunstan.  Every 
age  treats  history  according  to  its  own  views  and  convictions.  A 
superstitious  age,  or  an  illiterate  but  poetical  age,  w^ill  invent  and 
believe  many  things  which  would  be  at  once  exploded  in  more 
cultivated  times ;  but  it  does  not  follow  thence  that  the  ordinary 
transactions  of  life  in  those  periods  are  also  to  be  regarded  as 
fabulous.  Nay,  we  will  go  further,  and  say  that  these  mira- 
culous additions  are  a  proof  of  good  faith,  and  show  that  the  tra- 
dition first  arose  in  the  times  to  which  it  relates,  because  it  is 
framed  in  the  spirit  of  the  age.  If  of  these  early  times  a  purely 
rationalistic  account  had  been  transmitted  to  us,  such  as  a  German 
professor  or  historian  might  have  written  in  his  study  at  Berlin 
or  Leipsic,  we  should  at  once  pronounce  it  to  be  the  forgery  of  a 
later  age. 


ROMULEAN  CONSTITUTION. 

Romulus,  having  thus  built  a  city  on  the  Palatine,  and 
named  it  after  himself,  proceeded  to  endow  it  with  laws  and 
religious  ceremonies.  The  latter  were  to  be  performed  with 
Alban,  that  is,  Latin  rites, — a  concession,  no  doubt,  to  the 
usages  of  his  Latin  subjects.  The  only  Greek  rites  which  he 
retained  were  those  in  honour  of  Hercules ;  and  it  is  difficult 
to  perceive  why  he  should  have  preserved  even  these,  except 
that  he  was  himself  of  Grecian  descent.  The  worship  of 
Hercules  was  kept  up  in  after  times,  and  especially  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  Palatine ;  under  which,  in  the  sub- 
sequent Forum  Boarium,  was  the  Ara  Maxima,  besides 
one  or  two  temples  dedicated  to  that  demi-god.     Romulus 


62 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ROMULEAN   CONSTITUTION. 


63 


then  called  his  subjects  together,  and  dictated  to  them  cer- 
tain laws. 

According  to  this  account  the  Eoman  sovereign  was  an 
absolute  king,  the  head  both  of  Church  and  State.     He  ruled 
by  divine  right,  for  the  gods  had  given  him  the  kingdom 
by  augury.     Livy  has  represented  these  matters  correctly, 
but  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  quite  erroneously,  ^  when  he 
describes  Eomidus  as  calling  the  people  together  and  leaving 
to  them  the  choice  of  a  constitution.     The  Eoman  king,  like 
those  of  ancient  Greece,  w^as  irresponsible ;  his  power  was  an 
apxv  avvTrevOvvo^,^  wdiich  it  w^ould  hardly  have  been  had  it 
been  delegated  to  him  by  the  people.     And  though  after 
Eomulus  the  kings  w^ere  elected  by  the  people  and  senate, 
yet  the  same,  or  very  nearly  the  same,  absolute  power  w^hich 
he  had  enjoyed  appears  to  have  passed  on  to  them;  as  may 
be  seen,  for  instance,  in  the  examj)le  of  Servius  Tullius,  wdio 
bestows  a  new  constitution  of  his  own  free  will  and  absolute 
power.  2     In  order  to   render  his  person  more  venerable, 
Eomulus  assumed  certain  badges  of  authority  and  command  ; 
as  a  more  august  dress,  and  especially  the   attendance  of 
tw^elve  lictors.     Some  have  supposed  that  the  number  of 
these  w^as  taken  from  the  vultures  seen  by  Eomulus;  but 
Livy  thinks  it  more  probable  that  it  w^as  derived  from  the 
Etruscan  practice ;  in  w^hich  nation  each  of  the  twelve  cities 
of  the  confederacy  supplied  a  lictor.     This  agrees,  too,  with 
the  circumstance  that  the  sella  cicndis  and  toga  p^wtexta  wxre 
borrowed  from  the  Etruscans. 

The  Eomulean  kingdom  was  theocratic ;  almost  as  much  so 
as  that  of  the  Jews,  if  the  comparison  of  the  latter  with  a 
Pagan  government  may  be  admitted.  Not  only  is  the  king 
appointed  by  the  w^ill  of  the  gods,  as  manifested  by  augury, 
but  all  the  institutions  of  the  state,  the  senate,  the  centuries 

1  Ant.  Rom.  lib.  ii.  c.  3.     See  Rubino,  Rom.  Staatsverfussung . 

2  See  Wachsmuth,  Hellenische  Alterthumskunde,  Th.  i.  Abth.  i.  S. 

8  "Nobis  Romulus,  ut  libitum,  imperitaverat ;  dein  Numa  religionibus  et 
divino  jure  populum  devinxit :  repertaque  quajdam  a  Tullo  et  Anco  ;  sed 
prgecipuus  Servius  Tullius  auctor  legum  fuit,  quies  etiam  re^&sobtemperarent." 
— Tac.  Ann.  iii.  26. 


of  knights,  and  the  wdiole  constitution,  are  founded  on  the 
same  divine  sanction.^  Hence  its  conservative  nature  even 
under  the  popular  forms  of  a  republic.  Eor  the  grand  plea  of 
the  patricians  against  the  plebeians  was  always  their  sacred 
character,  the  possession  of  the  auspices.  This  conservative 
character  is  manifested  by  the  tendency  to  retain,  in  name  at 
least,  institutions  which  had  been  virtually  abolished.  Thus, 
after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings  a  Eex  Sacrificulus  w^as  ap- 
pointed for  certain  functions,  wliich  none,  it  was  thought, 
but  a  royal  priest  could  properly  discharge ;  and  long  after 
the  real  power  of  the  Comitia  Curiata  had  vanished,  they  still 
nominally  retained  their  original  powder  of  sanctioning  and 
confirming. 

But  the  chief  characteristic  of  the  early  monarchy  is,  that 
the  king  is  the  general  of  his  people,  their  leader  in  war ; 
and  that  the  people  are  but  an  army,  wdiose  principal  duty  it 
is  to  be  prepared  to  obey  the  first  summons  to  take  the  field. 
Thus,  during  the  first  interregnum,  the  chief  fear  of  the  senate 
is,  "  Ne  civitatem  sine  imperio,  cxeixitum  sine  dicccj  multanim 
circa  civitatum  irritatis  animis,  vis  aliqua  externa  adori- 
retur."  ^ 

THE  ASYLUM. 

After  awhile  other  spots  beyond  the  city  walls  began  to  be 
occupied  and  fortified,  but  rather  to  provide  for  the  expected 
increase  of  the  citizens,  than  because  the  present  limits  were 
too  small.  Among  the  places  thus  occupied  was  the  Capito- 
line  Hill ;  since  it  w^as  on  this  hill,  at  the  spot  called  Inter 
duos  lucoSy  in  the  depression  between  the  two  summits,  that 
Eomulus  opened  his  Asylum.  This  was  a  place  of  refuge  for 
fugitives  from  other  communities;  a  contrivance  not  unfre- 
quently  adopted  in  ancient  times  by  the  founders  of  cities,  in 

1  "Hunc  (senatum)  auspicato  a  parente  et  conditore  urbis  nostrae  institu- 
tum  .  .  .  aceepimus." — Tac.  Hist.  i.  84.  **  Id  (centuriasequitum)  quia  inaugu- 
rate Romulus  feccrat." — Liv.  i.  36.  *'Omnino  apud  veteres,  qui  rerum  potie- 
bautur,  iidem  auguria  tenebant.  Ut  enim  sapere,  sic  divinare  regale  ducebant. 
Testis  est  nostra  eivitas,  in  qua  et  reges  augures,  et  postea  privati  eodem 
sacerdotio  praediti  rempublicam  religionum  auctoritato  rexerunt. " — Cic.  Div. 
1.  40.  2  Liv.  i.  17. 


'.!# 


64 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   ROME. 


order  to  augment  the  population.  Such  refugees  were  of 
course  commonly  of  the  lowest  class ;  and  hence,  Livy  sug- 
gests, may  have  arisen  the  fable  of  populations  that  sprung 
from  the  earth. 

Remarks. — The  asylum  is  of  course  regarded  by  the  sceptical  critics 
as  a  pure  invention.  First,  it  is  said,  such  an  institution  is  entirely 
at  variance  with  all  that  we  know  of  the  manners  of  the  times. 
"  All  the  peoples  of  antiquity  lived  under  strong  and  stable  regimen 
(in  festtn  Fonnen) ;  the  civic  communities  were  always  organized 
down  to  the  lowest  classes ;  and  the  more  remote  the  times,  the 
more  binding  were  these  regimens,  the  more  compact  all  the  rela- 
tions of  civil  life.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  these  bands  of  adventurers,  vagabonds,  and  dissolute  fellows 
could  have  come  together,  which,  according  to  the  common  tradi- 
tion, flocked  to  Rome  from  the  neighbouring  towns  and  tribes."  ^ 

This,  we  must  confess,  appears  to  us  a  new  idea  of  these  ancient 
times,  and  hardly  to  be  realized  in  any,  except,  perhaps,  the 
Golden  Age,  those  Saturnia  Regna  which  had  long  passed  by  in 
Italy.  It  assumes  that  there  were  no  such  persons  as  insolvent 
debtors,  brigands,  pirates,  criminals  of  all  sorts,  runaway  slaves, 
persons  dissatisfied  with  the  government  or  with  their  own  lot,  or 
desirous  of  a  change  merely  for  the  sake  of  novelty.  We  certainly 
hear  of  such  classes  in  the  ancient  authors,  and  think  it  not  im- 
probable that  they  might  have  been  found  at  the  time  of  Rome's 
foundation,  just  as  they  may  now  and  probably  ever  will  be. 

That  the  Roman  nation  should  have  sprung,  it  is  further  said, 
from  a  band  of  robbers,  is  contradicted  by  the  entire  character  of 
the  old  Roman  state.-  The  original  state  was  a  family  state. 
Such  a  one  can  be  made  neither  by  legislation  nor  by  military 

1  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  465. 

2  We  do  not  see  how  this  view  agrees  with  the  passage  quoted  from  Hegel 
(Philosophie  d.  Gesch.  S.  345  f.)  in  support  of  it.  Hegel  appears  to  us  to 
accept  the  robber-state,  and,  by  means  of  it,  to  account  for  the  severity  of 
Roman  discipline.  This  is  precisely  contrary  to  Schwegler's  view.  His  v/ords 
are  :  "Dass  Rom  urspriinglich  eine  Rauberverbindung  war,  und  sich  als 
Rauberstaat  constituirt  hat,  muss  als  wesentliche  Grundlage  seiner  Eigenthiim- 
lichkeit  angesehen  werden.  Dieser  Ursprung  des  Staats  fiihrt  die  harteste 
Pisciplin  mit  sich.  Ein  Staat,  der  auf  Gewalt  beruht,  muss  mit  Gewalt 
zusammengehalten  werden.  Es  ist  da  nicht  ein  sittlicher  Zusammenhang, 
sondern  ein  gezwungener  Zustand  der  Subordination." 


'  j^'JIhJ"  - 


>^ 


i¥'-- 


THE    ASYLUM. 


>o 


force,  still  less  could  it  be  constituted  out  of  a  rabble  of  refugees. 
If  it  be  true  that  the  character  of  every  state  is  determined  by  its 
origin,  then  it  is  certain  that  a  community  so  strongly  organized  as 
the  old  Roman,  so  closed  against  what  was  external  to  it — as  seen 
by  the  word  hostes^  which  signifies  both  stranger  and  enemy — could 
not  possibly  have  arisen  from  a  mass  of  refugees. 

On  this  we  may  remark  that  nobody,  we  suppose,  would  main- 
tain that  Rome  sprang  from  a  band  of  robbers.  The  refugees 
would  have  formed  only  a  small  portion  of  its  citizens,  especially 
after  the  Sabine  union  ;  and  even  of  this  small  portion,  only  a  few, 
it  is  to  be  hoped,  were  robbers.  And  if  it  was  a  family  state — 
that  is,  we  presume,  somewhat  aristocratic  as  times  then  went — so 
much  the  more  need  would  there  have  been  of  persons  to  do  the 
hard  and  dirty  work.  But  the  assertion  that  Rome  w^as  shut 
against  strangers  is  founded  on  a  total  misconception  of  early 
Roman  history.  This  question  is  not  to  be  settled  by  the  etymology 
of  a  word,  but  by  the  tale  told  by  her  annals,  from  which  we  learn 
that  her  gates  were  always  open  to  strangers.  Witness  the  Tuscan 
and  Latin  colonies  which  she  received  within  her  walls,  the  Tuscan 
king  which  she  placed  upon  her  throne.  This  policy  was,  in  fact, 
the  secret  of  her  rapid  advance. 

That,  in  so  old  a  matter,  the  name  of  the  divinity  who  presided 
over  the  Asylum  should  be  unknown,  or  forgotten,  will  hardly  be 
regarded  as  a  serious  argument  against  its  existence. 

The  last  objection  which  Schwegler  brings  against  the  asylum  is, 
that  it  is  not  a  Roman  or  Italian  institution,  but  entirely  a  Greek 
one.^  No  other  example  of  it  can  be  pointed  to  in  the  whole 
course  of  Roman  history  till  we  come  to  the  Temple  of  Divus 
Julius  ',  and  Dion  Cassius  tells  us  that  this  was  unexampled  since 
the  time  of  Romulus.  For  though  the  asylum  of  that  king  con- 
tinued to  exist  after  his  death,  yet  it  had  been  enclosed  in  such  a 
manner  that  nobody  could  enter  it.^ 

Dr.  Ihne  has  adopted  the  same  line  of  argument  in  a  paper 
in  the  "  Classical  Museum "  ^  on  the  Asylum  of  Romulus.  He 
observes  that  not  only  are  there  no  traces  of  the  institution  of 
sacred  places  of  refuge  in  any  Italian  state,  or  in  Rome  itself, 
except  this  asylum  of  Romulus,  but  also  that  there  is  not  even  a 
word  in  the  Latin  language  to  designate  the  Greek  aavXuv. 


Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  4(56. 


'h. 


^  Dio.  Cass,  xlvii.  19 ;   cf.  Tac.  Ann.  iii.  36. 
3  Vol.  iii.  p.  190. 


66 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


THE   SENATE  OF  ROMULUS. 


67 


On  this  we  will  observe  :  first,  that  the  Romulean  Asylum  coiild 
not  then  have  possibly  been  a  fiction  and  invention  of  the  Romans, 
for  no  people  invent  an  institution  as  established  among  them- 
selves which  is  entirely  foreign  to  their  habits,  and  for  which  their 
language  has  not  even  a  name. 

Secondly,  it  could  not  have  been  invention,  because  the  place 
where  it  stood  continued  to  retain  its  name  even  down  to  the 
imperial  times.  The  long  survival  of  such  names  is  by  no  means 
uncommon  or  unparalleled.  We  have  still  in  London,  in  the 
Church  of  St.  Clement's  Danes,  a  memorial  of  the  Danes  settled 
in  that  neighbourhood  more  than  eight  centuries  ago,^  as  well  as 
several  others  in  London  and  other  parts  of  England.  This  is  a 
lonf^er  period  than  that  between  Romulus  and  the  imperial  times. 
And  being  called  the  '*  Asylum  of  Romulus,"  it  was  indissolubly 
connected  with  his  name,  and  helped  to  hand  it  down  to  posterity, 
as  that  of  the  first  Roman  king ;  being  in  this  way  as  good  a 
voucher  of  that  fact,  or  even  a  better,  than  any  written  document. 

Thirdly,  it  is  not  likely  to  have  been  an  invention,  as  it  reflects 
no  great  credit  upon  the  Roman  people.  A  nation  is  not  apt  to 
invent  stories  that  in  some  degree  dishonour  it,  however  prone  it 
may  be  to  the  opposite  course,  and  to  imagine  for  instance,  as  the 
Romans  did,  a  descent  from  ^neas. 

But  if  an  asylum  existed  at  Rome,  it  could  have  been  no  other 
than  that  of  Romulus,  for,  as  Schwegler  says,  the  whole  course  of 
Roman  history  knows  of  none  other.  And  here  we  have  a  natural 
explanation  of  it ;  for  Romulus,  as  we  have  seen,  was  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  a  Greek  ;  and  in  instituting  the  asylum  he  was  only 
following  a  custom  of  his  own  country.  And  he  gave  it  a  name 
from  his  own  language,  since  he  could  find  no  Latin  name,  just  as 
he  called  his  city  by  a  Greek  name. 

Dr.  Ihne,  who  of  course  supposes  that  the  founder  of  Rome  was 
a  Latin,  calls  it  a  "preposterous  supposition"  to  believe  that 
Romulus  had  sufficient  connexion  with  and  knowledge  of  Greece, 
to  adopt  this  foreign  institution.  We  have  endeavoured,  and  shall 
further  endeavour,  to  show  that  he  had  such  connexion.  How 
much  force  there  may  be  in  Dr.  Ihne^s  remark  that  "  even  this 
would  prove  useless,  for  Romulus  would  surely  never  have  been 
able  to  attract  many  suppliants  from  the  neighbouring  states,  if  the 
asylum  had  been  something  new,  which  nobody  knew  of,  and  to 
1  See  Worsaae's  Danes  and  Norwegians  in  England,  &;c.  p.  16,  seqq. 


«.:- 


v. 


which  nobody  could  trust,"  we  must  leave  the  reader  to  determine. 
How  "  many  "  he  attracted  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but,  though  the 
institution  was  a  novelty,  we  think  it  would  have  been  readily 
discovered,  easily  understood,  and  eagerly  embraced  by  the  class  of 
persons  for  whom  it  was  intended. 

THE  ROMAN  SENATE. — THE  CONSUALIA. 

The  city  having  been  thus  founded,  its  boundaries  enlarged, 
and  its  population  augmented,  Romulus  created  a  council,  or 
senate,  to  guide  him  with  their  advice  in  the  ruling  of  it. 
It  consisted  of  a  hundred  members,  a  number  probably  deemed 
sufficient,  or  it  may  be  that  there  were  not  more  whose  age 
and  rank  entitled  them  to  enter  it.  These  senators  were 
called  PatreSy  or  fathers,  by  way  of  honour  or  affection  ;  their 
families  were  to  bear  the  title  of  patricii,  or  patricians,  to 
distinguish  them  from  the  plehs,  or  general  mass  of  the  people. 
The  functions  of  this  new  senate  were  merely  to  advise  ;  they 
shared  no  portion  of  the  royal  power ;  their  influence  arose 
from  the  respect  due  to  their  judgment,  which  was  called 
auctoritas,  or  authority.^ 

A  city  formed  in  the  manner  which  we  have  described  was 
necessarily  ill  provided  with  women ;  and,  as  it  did  not  enjoy 
the  privilege  of  intermarriage  wdtli  the  surrounding  cities, 
although  in  warlike  powder  it  was  quite  equal  to  any  of  them, 
it  was  evident  that  it  could  last  but  a  single  generation.  In 
order  to  remedy  tliis  defect,  Romulus,  by  the  advice  of  his 
senate,  sent  ambassadors  to  the  surrounding  peoples,  to  request 
their  alliance  and  connulmim,  or  the  right  of  intermarriage ; 
a  process  wliicli  seems  somewhat  to  have  resembled  the  re- 
cognition of  a  new  state  in  modern  times.  But  the  applica- 
tion was  everywhere  scornfully  rejected.  The  new  city  was 
not  only  despised,  it  was  also  feared,  and  its  increasing  strength 

1  Cicero,  De  Rep.  ii.  8,  represents  Eomiilus  as  instituting  the  senate  after 
the  Sabine  War,  in  conjunction  with  Tatius,  and  at  the  same  time  when  he 
divided  the  people  into  tribes  and  curigo  ;  while  Dionysius  relates  that  both 
the  senate  and  the  curiae  were  established  before  the  Sabine  War.  The  account 
in  the  text  is  taken  from  Livy  ;  but  it  seems  probable  that  the  full  comple- 
ment of  the  senate  was  at  least  not  comjdeted  till  after  the  Sabine  union. 

E  2 


{ 


68 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


THE  CONSUALIA. 


69 


was  looked  upon  as  dangerous.  The  refusal  was  frequently 
accompanied  with  insult,  and  the  ambassadors  were  asked, 
"  Why  they  did  not  open  an  asylum  for  women  ?  In  that 
manner  they  would  find  suitable  wives." 

The  Eoman  youth  could  not  brook  this  insult;  it  was 
evident  that  the  matter  must  end  in  war  and  violence. 
Eomulus  was  willing  to  encourage  this  temper,  but  at  the 
same  time  determined  to  provide  a  fitting  place  and  oppor- 
tunity for  its  manifestation.  He  therefore  dissembled  his 
anger ;  and  in  the  meantime  busied  himself  in  preparing  some 
solemn  games  in  honour  of  the  Equestrian  Neptune,  which 
he  called  Gonsualia.  He  then  directed  the  spectacle  to  be 
announced  among  the  neighbouring  people;  and  the  games 
were  prepared  with  all  the  magnificence  then  known,  or  that 
lay  in  his  power,  in  order  to  give  them  renown,  and  cause 
them  to  be  looked  forward  to  with  interest  and  curiosity. 

Eemarks.— Whether  the  exact  nature  of  these  games  has  been 
correctly  handed  down  to  us  does  not  seem  to  be  a  point  of  very 
vital  importance  as  to  the  general  credibiUty  of  the  early  Eoman 
history.     On  such  a  subject  tradition  may  naturally  have  varied  a 
little  ;  and  we  do  not  pretend  that  before  the  time  of  TuUus  Hos- 
tilius  the  history  rested  on  anything  but  tradition.     Nevertheless, 
we  do  not  think  that  the  story  is  amenable  to  all  the  charges  that 
modern  critics  have  brought  against  it.     First,  it  is  objected ^  that 
the  games  of  the  Circus  were  not  introduced  till  the  time  of  Tarquin 
the  Elder,  and  indeed  could  not  have  taken  place  in  the  reign  of 
Eomulus,  when  the  site  of  the  Circus  was  nothing  but  a  marsh. 
But  the  two  professed  historians  of  Eome,  Livy  and  Dionysius  of 
Halicarnassus,  say  not  a  word  about  the  Circus.     They  merely  state 
that  Eomulus  gave  some  games  at  Eome  in  honour  of  Neptune.^ 
It  is  probable  enough  that  posterity  may  have  regarded  these  games 
as  the  origin  of  those  of  the  Circus ;  and  it  is  at  all  events  quite 
certain  that  there  could  have  been  none  earlier  at  Eome.     It  is 
only  Cicero,  amongst  the  classical  Eoman  authors,  who,  in  the  shght 
sketch  which  he  gives  of  Eoman  history  in  his  De  Kepuhlicay^  and 
perhaps  by  a  slip  of  the  pen,  says  that  they  actually  took  place  in 

1  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  471.  '  Li  v.  i.  9;  Dionys.  ii.  30, 

3  Lib.  ii.  c.  7. 


V.'". 


the  Circus.  For  though  they  are  also  alluded  to  by  Valerius 
Maximus,^  and  Virgil,^  under  the  name  of  circenses^  those  authors 
say  nothing  about  the  Circus.  Now  Eomulus  must  of  course  have 
prepared  some  space  where  the  chariots  were  driven  round,  the  only 
method  in  which  they  could  have  been  conveniently  viewed  by  the 
spectators ;  and  this  place  he  called  in  his  mother  tongue  dpKos, 
a  circus,  or  ring.  In  the  Latin  tongue  he  would  have  said  07'bis. 
Hence  these  were  really  the  first  Circensian  games,  though  not 
performed  in  the  place  afterwards  expressly  provided  for  them, 
T)ut,  it  may  be,  in  the  Campus  Martins,  or  some  other  suitable  spot. 
It  is  further  objected  :  How  should  the  pastoral  folk  of  the  Pala- 
tine city,  an  inland  town  without  navigation  or  commerce,  have 
come  to  celebrate  a  festival  to  Neptune,  of  all  the  gods  1  Where 
lias  ever  a  shepherds'  festival — and  such  originally  were  the  Con- 
sualia — concerned  Neptune '?  Further  :  an  Equestrian  Neptune  is 
found  only  in  the  Greek  mythology  ;  the  Italian  Neptune  has  no 
relation  at  all  to  the  taming  of  horses.  And  so  in  the  Circus 
ISIaximus,  it  was  not  Neptune,  but  Consus,  that  was  honoured. 
The  interpretation  of  Consus  as  Poseidon  Hippios  is  therefore 
altogether  unauthorized  ;  a  mere  subtlety  of  later  archaeologists, 
who  knew  perhaps  that  in  Greece,  and  especially  in  Thessaly  and 
Boeotia,  it  was  customary  to  give  horse-races  in  honour  of  Neptune 
as  the  breeder  and  tamer  of  horses  ;  and  accordingly  they  trans- 
ferred the  games  and  races  on  horseback  and  in  chariots,  ex- 
hibited by  Eomulus  on  the  festival  of  the  Consualia,  to  Poseidon 
Hippios.  But  this  interpretation  is  only  a  new  proof  how  com- 
pletely incapable  the  later  Eomans  were  of  understanding  their 
antiquities.^ 

Now  of  course  nobody  woidd  presume  to  say  that  an  old  Eoman 
knew  so  much  about  his  language  and  antiquities  as  a  modern 
German,  although  he  might  have  had  many  sources  for  studying  them 
which  are  now  lost,  and  might,  therefore,  possibly  have  had  some 
way  of  connecting  Consus  and  the  Equestrian  Neptune  with 
which  we  are  unacquainted.  We  see,  at  all  events,  as  much  diffi- 
culty as  Schwegler  does  in  connecting  horse  and  chariot  races 
with  a  shepherds'  festival,  as  in  connecting  them  with  anything 
in  the  world,  and  therefore  with  Consus,  whoever  he  may  have 
been. 

We  misht  leave  Dr.  Mommsen  and  his  followers  in  the  mer- 


Lil).  ii  c.  iv.  s.  -1. 


JEn.  viii.  636. 


3  >:i'lnvo^^ler,  B.  i.  S.  472. 


70 


HISTOllY   OF   THE  KINGS   OF   KOxME. 


THE  AKA  CONSI. 


7i 


cantile  theory  to  settle  the  ohjection  ahout  the  pastoral  mhahitants 
of  the  Palatine  city  celebrating  a  fete  to  Neptune,  except  for  that 
second  objection,  that  it  was  the  Greek  Equestrian  Neptune  ;  for 
the  Mommsenites  are  all  pure  Latins,  and  know  nothmg  about 
a  Greek  mixture  in  Latium.  But  according  to  our  theory  that 
Eomulus  was  a  Greek  by  descent,  we  find  no  difficulty  whatever 
in  this  Equestrian  Neptune ;  nay,  it  only  adds  to  the  probabHity 

of  our  view. 

It   is    said  that  the    Consualia  were  originally  nothing  but   a 
shepherds'  festival,  in  which  they  roUed  or  jumped  upon  hides. 
The   authority  for  this  is  Yarro,   Be   Vit  Fop.  Rom.,  quoted  by 
Nonius,  voc.  Cernuus,  p.  21  :— ^'  Etiam  peUesbubulas  oleo  perfusas 
percun-ebant,  ibique  cernuabant.     A  quo  ille  versus  vetus^est  m 
carminibus :   Sibi  pastores   ludos   faciunt   coriis    consualia."     But 
against  Yarro    in   Nonius   we    may  set  the   same   Yarro   in   his 
book   De  Lingua  Latina,   where  he  says :—"  Consualia   dicta   a 
Conso,  quod  turn  ferine  publicae  ei  deo,  et  in  circo  ad  aram  ejus  ab 
sacerdotibus  ludi  iUi  quibus  virgines  Sabinae  raptse."  ^     Here  Yarro, 
like  aU  the  other  best  Eoman  authorities,  connects  Consus  with 
the  Circus,  and  with  the  rape  of  the  Sabines.     And  we  will  here 
venture  a  conjecture,   which   may   reconcHe  Yarro  with  himself, 
and  which  is  at  all  events  as  well  founded  as  Schwegler's,  that 
the  Consualia  were  originally  (urspriingUch)  a   pastoral  fete— for 
Yarro  does  not  bear  him  out  in  saying  that  such  was  their  origin 
—namely,  that  the  shepherds,  after  seeing  Eomulus'  chariot  races, 
made   for  themselves    a   sort  of   Consualia— '*  si6i   ludos   faciunt 
Consualia  "—in  which  they  ran  about  on  oiled  hides  and  skins, 
in  racing  fashion,  as   they  had   seen  the    chariots   run.     Such   a 
piece  of  mimicry  would  be  quite  in  the  Italian  character. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  was  an  Ara  Consi  in  the  Circus, 
for  it  existed  there,  at  all  events,  down  to  the  time  of  Tertullian. 
It  appears  to  have  been  underground,  and  was  kept  covered  and 
concealed,  except  at  the  festival  of  the  Consualia,  when,  as  we 
understand  the  words  of  Yarro,  the  priests  gave  some  games  there 
in  imitation  of  those  which  accompanied  the  Sabine  rape.^     From 

1  Lib.  vi.  s.  20  (ed.  Mlill.). 

«  So  also  Dionysms  :  rrjy  5e  rore  r^  'PwjLiuAw  Kadifpccee^ffai/  topTT^j/  ert  koX  els 
ifxl  &yovT€S  'Pcofialoi  dieriKovv,  Kcoi^aovdkia  KaXovi^res,  iv  p  Pccu6s  re  j;7ro7f  loy 
t'Spu/ieVos  irapct  r<2  fieylaTCf  rQv  'nnrodp'SiJicov,  Trepi<TKa<pii(T'r]S  t^s  ynh  Bv(riaiS  re 
Kcil  {j-KepiTvpoiS  drrapxa^s  yepalperai,  kuI  Spbfxos  Uirwu  C^vktw^  t6  Kal  d^evKTwu 
iTriTeAetTat.— Lib.  ii.  c.  31 .     ])ioiiysius,  therefore,  had  seen  them. 


Ik 


this  underground  site  of  the  altar,  Hartung,i  and  other  German 
critics,  who  are  followed  by  Schwegler,  infer  that  it  was  consecrated 
to  Consus  as  an  infernal  deity.  This  view  is  supported  by  ad- 
ducing the  circumstances  that  the  offering  at  his  altar  was 
made  by  the  Flamen  Quirinalis  and  the  Yestal  Yirgins  ;  and 
that  on  the  festival  of  the  Consualia,  horses  and  mules  were 
released  from  work  and  decked  with  garlands,  while  mules  were 
used  in  celebrating  the  games  in  the  Circus  Maximus.  For  the 
horse  stood  in  near  relation  to  the  infernal  world,  and  mules 
especially  were  acceptable  to  the  infernal  deities,  on  account  of 
their  unfruitfulness  ;  for  which  reason  it  was  a  custom  and  a  sacred 
precept  not  to  harness  mules  on  the  occasion  of  the  ferice  denicales, 
or  solemnity  for  the  purification  of  the  family  of  a  deceased  person, 
— a  parallel,  it  is  said,  which  exactly  suits  the  Consualia.2 

How  an  occasion  on  which  mules  were  not  harnessed  can  be  a 
suitable  parallel  to  another  on  which  they  were  harnessed,  as  they 
must  have  been  to  perform  the  games  in  the  Circus,  it  is  rather 
difficult  to  perceive.  These  were  the  games  alluded  to  by  Yarro, 
in  the  passage  before  quoted,  as  performed  by  the  priests  in  com- 
memoration of  the  rape  of  the  Sabines.  Why  they  used  mules 
instead  of  horses  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but  the  former  have 
always  been  a  sacerdotal  kind  of  animal.  Schwegler  has  expended 
a  great  deal  of  misplaced  ingenuity  in  trying  to  prove  Consus  an 
infernal  deity,  when  all  the  circumstances  which  he  adduces  may 
be  satisfactorily  explained,  in  conformity  with  the  account  of  the 
Eoman  historians. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world 
that  the  Eomans  should  have  placed  there  an  altar  to  the  god 
whom  their  traditions  connected  with  the  origin  of  their  horse- 
races. It  was  also  natural  that  the  horses  and  mules  should 
enjoy  a  holiday  on  this  occasion,  much  as  they  do  at  the  present 
day  at  Eome  on  the  feast  of  St.  Antony,  when  they  are  also  decked 
with  garlands  and  ribbons ;  a  practice,  however,  which  seems  to 
us  of  rather  too  cheerful  a  nature  for  an  infernal  ceremony.  The 
altar  was  underground  and  concealed,  not  because  Consus  was  an 
infernal  deity,  but  because  it  was  thus  typical  of  the  secret  design 
of  Eomulus  in  instituting  the  games.  It  was  revealed  only  at 
the  time  when  they  were  performed,  just  as  the  counsel  of  Eomulus 
had   been.     This   agrees  with    the    explanation  of    Servius  in   a 


'   Religion  d.  Romov.  B.  ii.  S.  87, 


«  Schwegler,  ib.  S.  474. 


72 


HISTORY    OF   TIIK    KIXGiS    OF    KOMi:. 


THE   KAPE    OF  THE    SABINES. 


73 


passage  which  we  look  for  in  vain  among  those  cited  by  Schwegler  : 
"  Consiis  autem  est  deus  consiliorum,  qui  ideo  templum  sub  tecto 
in  Circo  habet,  ut  ostendatur  tectum  debere  esse  consilium."  ^ 
Kay,  we  learn  from  a  passage  in  Tertullian,  that  the  following 
inscription  to  the  same  effect,  which  he  probably  saw  with  his  own 
eyes,  actually  stood  upon  the  altar  : — ^'  Et  nunc  ara  Conso  illi  in 
Circo  defossa  est  ad  primasmetas  sub  terra  cum  inscriptione  hujus- 
modi :  Consus  consilio,  Mars  duello,  Lares  comitio  (or  coillo) 
potentes  : "  ^  where  we  have  a  history  in  brief  of  the  whole  trans- 
action ;  the  design  of  Eomulus,  the  war  which  ensued,  and  the 
subsequent  reconciliation  with  the  Sabines,  and  union  with  them 
in  domestic  life.  And  now  we  see  the  reason  why  the  Flamen 
Quirinalis,  or  of  Eomulus  deified  as  Mars,  and  the  Vestal  Virgins, 
should  have  offered  the  sacrifice  ;  the  former  in  reference  to  the 
war,  the  Vestals  with  reference  to  the  union  of  the  Sabines  and 
Romans  under  the  Lares  of  a  common  city. 

The  inscription  shows  what  sort  of  idea  at  least  the  Romans 
themselves  entertained  of  the  god.  How  or  at  what  time  Consus 
became  the  eponymous  deity  of  this  festival,  instead  of  Poseidon 
Hippios,  it  is  impossible  to  say ;  but  it  is  natural  that  a  Grecian 
deity  should  have  ultimately  given  place  to  a  Latin  one.  When 
the  Latin  writers  use  the  term  Consualia  in  speaking  of  the 
games  given  by  Romulus,  this  is  a  prolepsis;  they  employed  the 
name  that  was  most  familiar  to  them.  Whether  the  Romans 
derived  the  name  of  Consus  from  consilium,  we  shall  not  stop 
to  inquire.  If  they  did,  perhaps  the  similarity  of  sound  sufficed 
them ;  for  we  are  constantly  told  that  they  were  very  bad  etymo- 
logists. But  though  the  ancient  authors  use  the  name  of  Consus 
in  conjunction  with  consilium,  they  do  not  say  that  it  was  derived 
from  it. 

Schwegler  having  satisfied  himself  for  such  reasons  as  we  have 
seen,  and  against  the  concurrent  testimony  of  antiquity,  that  Consus 
was  an  infernal  god,  proceeds  to  argue  that  such  gods  were  closely 
related  to  fruitfulness,  though  he  has  just  before  told  us  that 
mules  were  used  in  these  games  because  their  un fruitfulness  was 
acceptable  to  the  infernal  deities  !  For  this  reason  Consus  was  to 
be  conciliated  with  games,  races,  and  the  like  festivities,  and  for 
this  reason  also  he  was  connected  with  the  first  Roman  marriages 
and  the  rape  of  the   Sabines  !     We  shall  not  abuse  our  readers' 


1^ 


i»> 


►  ..' 


■<v*. 


%^ 


<      '■, 


1  Ad  .Ell.  viii.  636. 


2  De  Spect.  5. 


patience  by  going  through  his  arguments  on  this  subject,  which 
occupy  two  pages, ^  but  will  proceed  with  the  history  of  Romulus. 

THE   RAPE   OF  THE   SABINES,   AND   SABINE   WAR 

The  proclamation   of  the   games   naturally  excited   great 
curiosity  among  the  surrounding  peoples,  who  flocked  to  Rome 
with  their  wives  and  children  in  great  multitudes,  not  only 
from  the  desire  of  beholding  so  novel  a  spectacle,  but  also  of 
viewing  the  new  city  itself.     The  greatest  number  came,  of 
course,  from  closely  adjoining  places,  as  the  Latin  cities  Csenina, 
Crustumerium,  and  Antemnre,  which  lay  w^ithin  a  few  miles 
of  Rome;   but  there  was  also  a  vast   quantity  of   Sabines. 
They  were  hospitably  received  and  lodged,  and  were  con- 
ducted round  the  city,  when  they  could  not  help  admiring  its 
I'iipid  increase  in  so  short  a  period.     When  the  time  for  the 
s|)ectacle  had  arrived,  and  when  the  eyes  and  minds  of  the 
guests  were  completely  absorl)ed  by  it,  the  stratagem  was 
carried  into  execution.     At  a  given  signal  the  Roman  youths 
rush  upon  them  and  seize  the  unmarried  women.    The  greater 
part  were  carried  off  indiscriminately  ;  but  some  of  the  more 
beautiful,  who  had  been  allotted  to  the  principal  patricians, 
were  conveyed  to  their  houses  by  plebeians,  to  whom  that 
business  had  been  intrusted.     It  is  related  that  one  of  them, 
conspicuous  above  the  rest  for  her  form  and  beauty,  was  carried 
off  by  a  band  of  a  certain  Talassius  ;  and  these  men,  to  many 
inquiries  for  whom   she  was  destined,  in   order  to  prevent 
lier  from  being  snatched  from  them,  called  out  ''  Talassio  ;" 
whence  the  use  of  that  word  in  nuptial  ceremonies.     The 
consternation  produced  by  this  act  interrupted  the  games. 
The  parents  of  the  ravished  virgins  fled,  filled  wdth  grief  and 
indignation,  and  calling  upon  the  god  to  whose  solemnity  they 
had  been  invited  to  avenge  upon  their  perfidious  hosts  the 
violated  laws  of  hospitality.     The  ravished  virgins  were  equally 
desponding  and  indignant.     But  Romulus  went  round  among 
them,  explaining  that  they  must  attribute  what  had  happened 
to  the  pride  of  their  fathers  in  refusing  their  neighbours  the 
right  of  intermarriage.     Let  them  consider  that  by  becoming 

1  S.  -175  r. 


"^'V'*: 

¥ 


W 


74 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROMK. 


THE   TEMPLE  OF  JUPITER  FERETRIUS. 


75 


the  wives  of  Eomans,  they  would  share  in  all  the  fortunes  of 
the  city,  and  consequently  of  their  children,  the  dearest  of  all 
ties  to  the  human  heart.     He  persuaded  them  to  lay  aside 
their  anger,  and  to  give  their  affections  to  those  to  whom 
fortune  had  given  their  persons.    He  represented  to  them  that 
a  wrong  by  no  means  barred  love  from  following  it ;  and  that 
they  would  find  their  husbands  all  the  more  kind  and  affection- 
ate, because  every  one  of  them  woidd  endeavour  by  attentions 
to  make  them  forget  their  parents  and  their  country.     These 
arguments  were  seconded  by  the  caresses  and  flatteries  of  the 
husbands,  who  excused  their  act  by  alleging  irresistible  love  ; 
an  apology  which  to  a  female  mind  is  ever  the  most  efticacious. 
By  these  means  the  women  were  gradually  pacified ;  but 
not  so  their  parents ;  who,  going  about  in  mourning  attire, 
endeavoured  by  their  tears  and  complaints  to  excite  their  re- 
spective cities  to  avenge  their  cause.    And  not  their  own  cities 
alone.    They  gathered  about  Tatius,  King  of  the  Sabines,  to 
whom  also  embassies  were  despatched  on  the  subject;  for  Tatius 
was  the  most  renowned  sovereign  in  those  parts.    But  he  and 
his  Sabines  appearing  too  slow  in  the  matter,  the  C^eninenses, 
Crustuminians,  and  Antemnates,  who,  as  we  have  said,  had 
also  shared  in  the  injury,  made  a  league  among  themselves 
and  prepared  to  go  to  war.    But  the  Cseninenses  found  even 
their  allies  too  slow ;  they  therefore  took  the  field  on  their 
own  account,  and  invaded  the  Eoman  territory.     But  they 
began  to  devastate  and  pillage  without  order  and  discipline, 
and  so  became  an  easy  prey  to  Eomulus,  who  fell  upon  and 
routed  them  at  the  first  onset.     He  then  pursued  their  flying 
host,  killed  their  king  in  combat,  and  possessed  himseK  of  his 
spoils ;  and  the  enemy  having  thus  lost  their  leader,  he  took 
their  city  at  the  first  rush.     Then  he  marched  home  with  his 
victorious  army ;  and  as  he  w^as  as  ostentatious  of  his  deeds 
as  he  was  great  and  admirable  in  their  accomplishment,  he 
ascended  the  Capitoline  Hill,  bearing  the  spoils  of  the  slain 
king  on  a  frame  adapted  to  the  purpose.     Here  he  deposited 
them  by  an  oak,  regarded  as  sacred  by  the  shepherds ;  and  at 
the  same  time  he  marked  out  in  his  mind  the  limits  for  a 
temple  to  Jupiter,  adding  an  appropriate  name  for  the  god. 


■■. ; 


1.^ 

'  rf 


H 


"  Jupiter  Feretrius,"  he  exclaimed,  "  I,  the  victorious  King 
Romulus,  here  bear  to  thee  these  royal  arms,  and  dedicate  to 
thee  at  this  spot  a  temple  which  I  have  determined  in  my 
mind,  to  be  for  posterity,  after  the  example  I  now  set,  a  re- 
ceptacle for  spolia  opima,  or  those  spoils  which  are  taken 
from  a  slain  king  or  leader  of  the  enemy."  Sucli  is  the  origin 
of  the  first  temple  dedicated  at  Eome.  The  gods  have  willed 
that  the  words  of  its  founder  should  not  be  altogether  vain, 
when  he  mentioned  the  future  dedication  of  such  spoils,  nor 
at  the  same  time  that  the  reputation  of  such  an  offering 
should  be  made  too  common  by  the  number  of  the  dedicators. 
Although  since  that  time  down  to  the  establishment  of  the 
empire  so  many  years  have  elapsed,  so  many  wars  have  been 
waged,  only  twice  have  such  spoils  been  subsequently  dedi- 
cated.    So  rare  has  been  the  fortune  of  so  great  an  honour ! 

Whilst  the  Eomans  were  thus  employed  in  celebrating  their 
victory,  the  Antemnates  seized  the  occasion  of  their  borders 
being  left  defenceless  to  make  a  foray  over  them.  But  they 
committed  the  same  mistake  as  the  Cseninenses  :  while  they 
were  spread  in  disorder  through  the  fields,  Eomulus  suddenly 
attacked  them  with  his  legion,  routed  them  on  the  first  onset, 
and  captured  their  city.  Hersilia,  the  wife  of  Eomulus,  at 
the  intercession  of  the  ravished  brides,  besought  him  to 
pardon  their  fathers,  and  to  receive  them  into  his  city ;  and 
thus,  by  means  of  coalition  and  concord,  to  strengthen  and 
augment  the  state;  and  Eomulus,  though  flushed  with  his 
double  victory,  readily  acceded  to  the  request.  A  most  im- 
portant tradition,  and  the  secret  of  Eome's  future  greatness ; 
for  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Eomans  acquired  their 
empire  as  much  by  their  policy  of  conciliating  and  amalga- 
mating the  vanquished,  as  by  their  valour  in  subduing  them. 
The  policy  is  expressed  in  Virgil's  line — 

*'  Parcere  subjectis  et  debellare  superbos. "  i 


'  Compare  the  speech  of  the  Emperor  Claudius  to  the  Senate  :  "  Quid  aliud 
exitio  Lacedaimoniis  et  Atheniensibus  fuit,  quamquam  aimis  pollereut,  nisi 
quod  victos  pro  alienigenis  arcebant  ?  At  conditor  noster  Romulus  tantuni 
sapientia  valuit,  ut  plerosque  populos  eodem  die  hostes,  dein  cives  habuerit. " 
— Tac.  Ann.  xi.  24. 


76 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


Eonmlus  now  marclied  against  the  Criistuminians,  who 
were  preparing  to  attack  him.  His  victory  in  this  quarter  was 
still  more  easy  than  the  preceding  ones,  for  the  Crustuminians 
had  become  completely  demoralized  by  the  defeat  of  their 
allies.  Eomulus  having  thus  vanquished  his  more  immediate 
enemies,  planted  colonies  at  Crustumerium  and  Antemnoe. 
AVe  may  suppose  that  these  were  only  a  few  hundred  soldiers, 
who  served  to  keep  the  conquered  cities  in  check ;  whilst  a 
considerable  migration  to  Eome,  especially  of  the  parents  and 
relations  of  the  ravished  brides,  tended  to  fuse  together  Eome 
and  her  conquests. 

The  last  war  against  the  Sabines  was  the  most  formidable 
of  all.  For  that  people  did  not  follow  the  mere  blind  impulse 
of  anger  and  cupidity ;  they  carefully  matured  their  warlike 
preparations,  and  concealed  their  design  to  enter  upon  hos- 
tilities till  they  were  thoroughly  prepared  to  carry  it  out. 
Stratagem  was  added  to  counsel.  Tatius  bribed  the  daughter 
of  Sp.  Tarpeius,  the  commander  of  the  Eoman  citadel  on  the 
CapitoHne,  who  had  proceeded  beyond  the  fortifications  to 
fetch  water  for  some  sacred  solemnities,  to  admit  the  soldiers 
into  the  fortress.  The  Sabines,  on  being  admitted,  over- 
whelmed and  killed  her  with  their  arms ;  either  to  make  it 
appear  that  the  citadel  had  been  taken  by  force,  or  for  the 
sake  of  example,  and  to  show  that  treason  can  never  rely 
upon  impunity.  The  story  is  embellished  by  relating  that 
Taipeia  had  stipulated  for  the  heavy  golden  bracelets  which 
the  Sabines  commonly  carried  on  the  left  arm,  and  their  rings 
beautifully  set  with  gems  ;  when,  instead  of  these,  the  Sabines 
heaped  upon  her  their  shields.  Some  say  that  in  the  agree- 
ment for  what  they  had  in  their  left  hands,  her  object  was  to 
get  possession  of  their  arms ;  and  that  her  fraudulent  inten- 
tion being  perceived,  she  was  made  the  martyr  of  it. 

The  Sabines,  however,  in  whatever  manner,  had  got  pos- 
session of  the  citadel ;  nor  on  the  following  day  did  they 
come  down  into  the  level  ground  between  the  Capitoline  and 
Palatine  hills,  till  the  Eomans,  incited  by  rage  and  the 
desire  of  recovering  their  citadel,  were  preparing  to  mount 
to  the  assault  of  it.     The  principal  leaders  were,  on  the  side 


THE  SABINE  WAR. 


77 


of  the  Sabines  Metius  Curtius,  on  that  of  the  Eomans  Hostius 
Hostilius.     Hostius,  planting  himself  in  the  van,  sustained 
awhile  by  his  courage  and  audacity  the  fortunes  of  the  Eoman 
host,  which  was  arrayed  on  very  unfavourable  ground  ;  but 
no  sooner  did  he  fall  than  the  Eoman  line  was  immediately 
broken  and  driven  back  to  the  ancient  gate  of  the  Palatine. 
Eomulus  himself  was  carried  away  in  the  crowd  of  fugitives ; 
when,  lifting  up  his   hands  towards  heaven,  he  exclaimed, 
"  0  Jupiter,  it  was  by  the  command  of  thy  auguries  that  I 
laid  here  on  the  Palatine  the  first  foundations  of  the  city. 
Already,  through  fraud  and  corruption,  the  Sabines  are  in 
possession  of  the  citadel;  and  now  they  have  crossed  the 
valley,  and  are  hastening  to  attack  the  l*alatine.     Drive  them 
at  least  hence,  O  father  of  gods  and  men ;  arrest  this  panic 
of  the  Eomans  and  stop  their  foul  flight.     I  here  vow  to  thee, 
as  Jupiter  Stator,  a  temple,  which  shall  be  a  monument  to 
posterity  that  the  city  was  preserved  by  thy  present  aid."     So 
saying,  as  if  perceiving  that  his  prayer  had  been  heard,  he 
exclaimed,  "  From  this  spot,  Eomans,  Jupiter  Optimus  Maxi- 
mus  commands  you  to  stand  and  renew  the  fight !"    By  these 
words  was  the  flight  of  the  Eomans  arrested,  as  if  they  had 
heard  a  voice  from  heaven ;  and  Eomulus  flies  to  their  head. 
Metius  Curtius  was  leading  tlie  Sabines.      Charging  down 
from  the  citadel,  he  had  driven  the  Eomans  from  him  the 
whole  length  of  the  Forum ;  and  he  was  now  not  far  from  the 
Palatine  gate,  exclaiming :    "  We  have  conquered  our   per- 
fidious hosts  and  cowardly  enemies  1     They  have  learnt  that 
it  is  one  thing  to  ravish  virgins,  another  to  fight  with  men." 
While  he  was  thus  boasting,  Eomulus  set  upon  him  with  a 
band  of  his  boldest  youth  ;  and  as  Metius  happened  to  be  on 
horseback  he  was  the  more  easily  driven  back.     The  Eomans 
pursued  him  as  he  fled ;  whilst  another  Eoman  band,  inflamed 
by  the  king's  courage,  breaks  the  Sabines.     Metius,  whose 
horse  was  frightened  by  the  cries  of  the  pursuers,  threw  him- 
self into  the  marsh ;  but  animated  by  the  shouts  and  gestures 
of  the  Sabines,  he  managed  to  get  through.     The  Eomans  and 
Sabines  renew  the  figlit  in  the  valley  between  the  hills ;  but 
the  Eomans  were  now  evidently  superior. 


78 


HISTOPwY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROI^IE. 


At  this  juncture  the  Sabine  women,  by  the  injury  inflicted 
upon  whom  the  war  had  arisen,  throwing  aside  womanly  fear 
at  this  terrible  sight,  ventured,  through  the  thick  of  the  flying 
missiles,  to  throw  themselves  between  the  combatants  and  to 
pacify  their  rage,  appealing  on  one  side  to  their  fathers,  on 
the  other  to  their  husbands,  imploring  them,  as  the  case  might 
be,  not  to  stain  themselves  with  the  blood  of  a  father  or  a 
son-in-law  and  contract  the  stain  of  parricide.  "  If  you 
regret  this  relationship,  this  marriage,  turn  your  anger  against 
us;  for  we  are  the  cause  of  this  war,  and  of  the  mutual 
wounds  and  slaughter  of  husbands  and  parents.  It  will  be 
better  for  us  to  perish  than,  either  as  orphans  or  as  widows, 
to  live  deprived  of  you." 

The  sight  of  the  women,  their  pathetic  entreaties,  touched 
both  the  common  soldiers  and  their  leaders.  The  fray  ceased 
all  at  once,  and  the  tumult  of  strife  was  succeeded  by  a  pro- 
found silence  ;  amidst  which  the  leaders  on  both  sides  stepped 
forth  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  treaty.  In  this  was  in- 
cluded not  only  a  peace,  but  the  converting  of  the  two  cities 
into  a  common  one.  The  two  kings  agreed  to  share  the  royal 
power;  but  the  entire  government  was  assigned  to  Eome. 
The  city  being  thus  doubled,  in  order  that  the  Sabines  might 
not  seem  to  be  neglected,  they  were  called  Quirites,  from  the 
town  of  Cures.  A  monument  of  that  battle  is  the  lake  called 
Curtian,  so  named  from  the  spot  where  the  horse  of  Curtius, 
having  at  length  emerged  from  the  deep  bog,  bore  him  safely 
to  the  margin. 

Eemarks. — ^The  rape  of  the  Sabines,  and  the  war  which  ensued, 
terminated  by  a  peace  which  fused  the  two  peoples  together,  form 
one  of  the  most  important  traditions  of  early  Eoman  history.  It 
involves  the  questions  whether  the  Romans  were  a  pure  or  a  mixed 
race ;  and  if  the  latter,  whether  the  mixture  was  effected  by  treaty 
and  agreement,  or,  as  some  have  supposed,  by  the  actual  subjugation 
of  the  Eomans.  That  the  tradition  is  accompanied  with  some 
fabulous  circumstances  must  be  at  once  admitted ;  but  it  would  be 
unreasonable  to  reject  it  on  this  account,  if  the  principal  fact  rests 
on  evidence  that  must  be  considered  as  almost  irrefragable.  It 
would  be   preposterous   to  expect  that   early  history  should   be 


THE  SABINE   UNION. 


79 


handed  down  in  all  that  connexion  of  events,  and  with  all  that 
array  of  evidence,  which  characterise  modern  historical  compositions. 
The  work  of  Herodotus,  for  instance,  contains  no  doubt  a  vast 
substratum  of  truth,  though   mixed   up   occasionally  with  what 
appear  to  us  to  be  the  most  ridiculous  and  childish  fables.     This 
characteristic  arises  not  unfrequently  from  the  simplicity  of  ancient 
manners.     The  ancients  were  the  children  of  the  world  ;  they  often 
regarded  things  in  a  simple  and  credulous  manner ;  and  they  are 
not,  therefore,  to  be  regarded  as  wilfully  palming  untruths  upon 
us,  but  rather  as  transmitting  to  us  truths  accompanied  with  extra- 
ordinary and  fabulous  circumstances,  such  as  they  themselves,  or 
the  great  majority  of  them,  believed.     That  such  fables  should 
particularly  attach  themselves  to  the  more  striking  and  important 
events  of  early  history  is  natural  enough.     It  was  these  that  made 
the  deepest  impression  upon  the  popular  mind ;    that  were  the 
constant  topics  of  conversation  ;  that  were  the  subjects  of  such 
songs  and  poetry  as  might  then  have  existed ;  and  were  hence 
accompanied  with  exaggerated  details,  and  embellished  with  pleasing 
fictions,  which  have  not  only  depreciated,  but  actually  destroyed, 
their  historical  value  in  the  eyes  of  modern  critics.     The  Sabine 
War  was  pre-eminently  an  event  of  the  kind  just  alluded  to,  and  a 
natural  subject  for  embellishment  and  fiction.     We  will  endeavour 
to  eliminate  what  traits  of  this  sort,  or  what  other  incongruities, 
may  have  attached   themselves  to  it,  and  will  then  proceed   to 
examine  the  main  subject  of  the  tradition. 

Among  the  objections  to  the  story  of  the  rape  of  the  Sabines 
are  the  dates  at  which  the  event  is  placed,  and  the  varying  numbers 
of  the  ravished  virgins.^  According  to  Fabius  Pictor,^  the  rape 
took  place  in  the  fourth  month  after  the  building  of  the  city. 
JS'othing,  it  is  said,  can  be  more  simple  than  the  way  in  wliich  this 
calculation  was  made.  The  Gonsualia  fall  on  the  18th  of  August, 
and  consequently  in  the  fourth  month  after  the  Palilia,  or  festival 
of  the  foundation  of  the  city.  Other  writers,  to  whom  this  period 
seemed  too  short,  as  Cn.  Gellius,  quoted  by  Dionysius,^  arbitrarily 
converted  it  into  four  years.  These  variations  compel  us  to  conclude 
that  the  date  of  the  event  was  unknown  ;  but  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily follow  that  it  did  not  take  place. 

The  original  tradition  gave  the  number  of  the  ravished  Sabines 

1  Seliwcgler,  Buch  ix.  S.  7.  2  Ap.  V\\\i.  Rom.  14. 

^  Lib.  ii.  c.  31. 


80 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


at  thirty  ;  which  number  was  evidently  taken  from  the  thirty 
curiie,  to  which  the  names  of  Sabine  women  are  said  to  have  been 
given.  But  as  this  seemed  too  small,  another  tradition  assigned  it 
only  to  the  women  who  had  sued  for  the  peace  ;  ^  which  is  evidently 
only  a  rationalistic  version  of  the  original  account.  When  other 
traditions  make  the  number  of  the  women  527,  or  683,  or  800,^ 
these  are  the  purest  and  most  arbitrary  inventions,  and  only  serve 
to  show  with  what  levity  the  most  positive  data  were  invented  by 
the  later  annalists. 

It  may  be  that  the  number  thirty  w^as  taken  from  the  number  of 
the  curise ;  but  it  is  quite  evident  that  this  could  not  have  been 
the  whole  number  of  the  ravished  women.  For  those  who  gave 
names  to  the  curiae  were  all  Sabines,  besides  whom,  women  from 
the  three  Latin  towns  also  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Eomans  : 
though  from  the  intimate  connexion  w^hich  subsequently  ensued 
between  the  Eomans  and  Sabines,  it  was  natural  that  the  Sabine 
women  should  have  almost  engrossed  the  tradition.  The  whole 
thirty  curise,  however,  were  not  named  after  the  Sabine  women. 
Ten  of  them  must  have  existed  before  the  Sabine  union ;  and  that 
this  w^as  so,  appears  from  the  circumstance  that,  among  the  few 
names  of  these  curise  that  have  been  preserved,  two  or  three  are 
evidently  Eomulean.  These  names  are  Foriensis,  Eapta,  Yeliensis, 
Velitia,  in  Festus ;  ^  Titia,  in  Paulus  Diaconus,  as  among  the  new 
curiae  ;*  Faucia  in  Livy  ;^  and-Acculeia  in  Yarro.^  Of  these  the 
Curia  Yeliensis  is  evidently  named  from  the  Yelian  Hill,  and  was 
therefore  Eomulean ;  while  the  Titia  is  as  evidently  Sabine.  The 
Acculeia  was  also  probably  Eomulean ;  as  a  sacrifice  was  offered  in 
it  to  Angerona,  the  Goddess  of  Silence,  particularly  as  regarded  the 
forbidden  utterance  of  the  secret  name  of  Eome.  M acrobius '' 
indeed  makes  the  sacrifice  performed  in  the  chapel  of  Yolupia, 
which  stood  near  the  Porta  Eomanula ;  but  the  curia  and  sacelluni 
very  probably  adjoined  each  other.  The  Eoman  and  Sabine  names 
lend  some  confirmation  to  the  old  tradition. 

It  seems  probable  that  even  the  Sabine  women  must  have  been 

1  Cic.  De  Rep.  ii.  8  ;  Dionys.  ii.  47. 

2  Dionys.  ii.  30,  47  ;  Plut.  Rom.  14 ;  comp.  Thes.  ct  Rom.  6.  But 
the  number,  "nearly  800,"  appears  to  be  a  slip  of  memory  on  the  part  of 
Plutarch  for  "nearly  700  ;"  alluding  to  the  number  683. — See  Lewis,  vol.  ii. 
p,  421,  note  41. 

3  Page  174.  ^  Pago  366.  »  Lib.  ix.  c.  38. 
•  Ling.  -Lat.  vi.  23  (ed.  Miill.).                                      7  Sat.  i.  10. 


ROMAN   MARRIAGE   CUSTOMS. 


81 


considerably  more  than  thu-ty  in  number ;  and  it  is  not  unlikely 
that,  with  those  of  the  Latin  cities,  the  whole  number  may  have 
reached  500  or  GOO.  There  is  nothing  in  Avhich  oral  tradition  is 
more  subject  to  err  than  numbers ;  but  this  affords  no  valid  ground 
for  disputing  the  fundamental  truth  of  the  tradition.  ^"ay,  on 
such  grounds  we  might  dispute  the  truth  of  many  well-known  facts 
wdiich  have  occurred  in  the  memory  of  some  of  the  present  genera- 
tion ;  and  from  the  mendacious  bulletins  of  the  lii'st  Euonaparte— 
which  are  written^  not  oralj  testimony — we  might  conclude  that 
some  of  his  most  famous  battles  had  never  been  fought. 

The  whole  story  of  the  rape  of  the  Sabiiies  is,   it  is  said,  an 
a3tiological  mytli,^  invented  to  explain    certain    Eoman   marriage 
customs.     Witli  most  of  the  peoples  of  anticiuity,   marriage  was 
originally   a   robbery,    or   rape,    and   many  reminiscences  of  this 
custom  survived  after  the  custom  itself  had  become  obsolete.    Thus, 
in  Eoman  nuptials,  the  bride  was  torn  from  the  arms  of  her  mother ; 
she  was  lifted  over  the  threshold  by  those  who  came  to  take  her  ; 
the  spear,  also,  with  which  the  bride's  hair  was  parted,  indicated 
that  marriage  was  a  work  of  arms  and  force  ;  while  the  custom  of 
not  celebrating  marriages  on  a  festival,  ur  holiday  (die  ferlato),  points 
the  same  way,  since  to  commit  violence  on  such  days  was  an  act 
requiring  expiation.^     All  these  traits  were  referred  by  the  Eomans 
themselves  to  the  rape  of  the  Sabines,  and  especially  the  cry  of 
'*  Talassio,"  uttered  by  the  party  who  escorted  the  bride  from  the 
house  of  her  parents  to  that  of  her  husband.     But  concerning  this 
Talassius  there  was  a  great  difference  of  opinion.     Some  thought 
that  he  was  a  distinguished  youth,  whose  people  carried  off  for  him 
the  most  beautiful  of  the  maidens ;  others  that  he  was  a  man  who 
had  been  so  peculiarly  fortunate  in  his  marriage  that  his  name  was 
called  out  by  way  of  good   omen;  whilst   some,   again,    were  of 
opinion  that  it  was  the  word  agreed  upon  by  Eomulus  as  the  signal 
for  the  attack.     It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  there  was  no  real  tradi- 
tion about  it,  and  that  these  fables  have  only  been  invented  in  order 
to  explain  the  customary  but  enigmatical  cry  of  *'  Talassio."     Like 
the  other  wedding  customs,  it  was  not  derived  from  the  pretended 
fact  of  the  rape  of  the  Sabines,  but,  vice  versd,  the  fact  was 'deduced 
from  the  customs.     While  among  the  Eomans  marriage  passed  for 
a  robbery,  so  it  was  concluded  that  the  first  marriages  at  Eome 
were  effected  in  that  manner, 

^  Schwegler,  Bucli  ix.  S.  5.    .  ^  See  Mucrob.  Sat.  i. 

G 


15. 


82 


HISTORY   OF  THE    KINGS   OF   ROME. 


REMARKS   ON  THE  SABINE  WAR. 


83 


Before  we  address  ourselves  to  these  objections,  let  us  remark 
that  the  name  Tahissius  is  evidently  a  Greek  one— GaXaVatoc, 
*'  pertaining  to  the  sea."  How  the  Latins  should  have  adopted  a 
Greek  word  in  their  marrfnge  customs  it  is  not  very  easy  to  say, 
unless  it  came  down  to  them  from  the  time  of  Eomulus,  who,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  a  Greek ;  a  word,  moreover,  appropriate  to  a 
festival  of  the  Equestrian  Keptune.  Tlie  Ilamnes  had  evidently 
not  yet  forgotten  their  long  wanderings  over  the  sea. 

That  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  about  the  origin  of  the  cry 
Talassius  is  nothing  to  the  point.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion 
about  the  manner  in  which  the  Order  of  the  Garter  was  instituted, 
and  whether  the  story  about  the  Countess  of  Salisbury  be  true;  but 
nobody  doubts  on  that  account  that  the  Order  was  instituted  by 

Edward  III. 

It  is  allowed  that  the  Eoman  wedding  customs  were  not  mere 
arbitrarv  inventions,  but  were  really  derived  from  some   ancient 
practice";  and,  indeed,  it  is  contrary  to  all  experience  of  human 
nature  to  suppose  that  such  observances  as  these,  which  have  pene- 
trated deeply  into  the  habits  of  a  people,  could  have  originated  from 
a  mere  idle  story.     But  if  this  be  so,  we  think  it  speaks  very  much 
in  favour  of  the  old  tradition,  and  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
Eomans  themselves  concerning   it.      If  it  be  admitted  that   the 
llomans  at  one  time  stole  their  wives,  we  see  no  more  convenient 
epoch  to  which  to  refer  the  practice  than  where  tradition  places  it, 
at  the  commencement  of  their  history.     That  the  practice  obtained 
among  "  most  of  the  people  of  antiquity  *'  is  an  exceedingly  round 
assertion.      The  Spartans   only   seem   to   have   retained   in   their 
marriage   ceremonies   some   traces   of  such   a  practice  j^    and,  as 
Dionysius  makes  Eomulus  excuse  his  act  by  alleging  that  it  was  an 
ancient  Greek  custom,^  we  may  conclude  that  he  considered  it  as 
unknown  in  Italy.     The  same  passage  tends  to  confirm  our  theory 
of  the  Greek  origin  of  Komulus. 

But  we  have  shown  that  the  festival  of  the  Consualia  was  also 
connected  with  the  tradition  of  the  rape  of  the  Sabmes.  Thus 
we  have  two  very  prominent  usages,  one  in  the  public  life,  the 
other  in  the  domestic  and  daily  customs  of  the  Eomans,  both 
referring  to  a  tradition  which,  according  to  the  *' aitiological " 
school  of  critics,  was  nothing  but  pure  invention.  That  there 
should  have  been  two  customs  of  so  different  a  nature,  yet  at  the 


1  riu':.  Lye.  15  ;  cf.  Herod,  vi.  65. 


2  ii.  13. 


■'■•if     J 


s. 


X'j. 


same  time  capable  of  being  joined  together  as  cause  and  effect,  is 
]nost  extraordinary,  and  we  should  say  unexampled.  And  further, 
that  they  could  have  both  been  connected  with  the  rape  of  the 
Sabines,  unless  there  had  previously  existed  a  deeply-rooted  tradi- 
tion of  that  event  among  the  Roman  people,  we  confess  ourselves 
unable  to  understand.  To  suppose  that  a  story  invented  from 
tliose  two  customs  at  a  comparatively  late  period  should  have  met 
with  the  universal  acceptance  which  that  of  the  rape  of  the  Sabines 
appears  to  have  done,  seems  to  us  utterly  incredible. 

If  the  rape  of  the  Sabines  is  mythical,  continues  Schwegler,^  it 
could  not  have  been  the  occasion  of  the  wars  which  Romulus  is 
said  to  have  waged  with  some  neighbouring  cities,  and  afterwards 
Avith  the  Sabines.  There  is  no  historical  ground  for  the  wars  with 
Coenina,  Crustumerium,  and  Antemna? ;  they  are  invented  for  tho 
purpose  of  displaying  Romulus  as  a  victorious  warrior,  as  celebrating 
the  first  triumph,  and  winning  the  first  spolia  opima;  attributes 
which,  on  account  of  their  ominous  character,  it  was  necessary  to 
assign  to  a  founder  of  Rome.  But  the  Sabine  war  has  a  sure 
historical  ground. 

"We  have  assigned  some  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  Sabine 
rape  may  not  be  altogether  mythical.  The  details  of  the  wars 
which  ensued  may  perhaps  be  exaggerated  or  misrepresented  ;  but 
to  say  that  they  are  altogether  invented  is  a  mere  conjecture  and 
gi'atuitous  assertion,  made  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  a  precon- 
ceived theory.  The  Sabine  war  and  its  issue,  as  described  by  Livy, 
are  probably  made  much  too  favourable  to  the  Romans.  In  order 
to  extenuate  their  defeat,  the  most  is  made  of  the  careful  and  secret 
l^reparations  of  the  Sabines.  The  pretty  story  of  Tarpeia,  which 
Livy  himself  calls  a  fable,  and  of  which  there  were  several  different 
versions,  is  an  evident  invention  to  salve  the  wounds  of  national 
self-love.  That  the  Sabines  should  have  marched  without  let  or 
hindrance  to  the  foot  of  the  Capitoline  and  have  taken  it  on  the 
first  assault  betrays  their  superiority,  and  suggests  the  idea  that  the 
Romans  had  previously  met  with  some  defeats  which  their  vanity 
has  concealed.  The  war,  however,  was  much  longer  than  it  appears 
to  have  been  in  the  narrative  of  Livy,  where  we  have  only  the 
decisive  results  j  a  circumstance  characteristic  of  tradition,  and 
especially  of  a  tradition  derogatory  to  the  national  reputation.  But 
it  seems  probable,  from  the  consequences,  either  that  the  last  battle 

J  Buch  ix.  S.  8. 
G  2 


•J 


84 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


MEMORIALS   OF   THE   SABINE   UNION. 


85 


was  a  drawn  one,  or  tliat  peace  and  union  were  effected  between 
the  two  nations,  by  the  intervention  of  the  women,  or  in  some 
other  manner. 

Before    examining   these    consequences,    we   will    advert   for   a 


moment  to  the  wars. 


and  one  or  two  of  their  incidents.     That 


Eome,  soon  after  its  foundation,  should  have  had  to  contend  with 
some  of  the  surrounding  cities,  seems  sufficiently  natural,  and  that 
in  these  struggles  it  shoidd  in  general  have  proved  victorious  is 
shown  by  the  fact  of  its  existence.     We  think  that  the  Temple  of 
Jupiter    Feretrius,    which    contmued   to  exist    to    a   late  period, 
undoubtedly  belonged  to  the  very  early  times  of  Rome.      This  is 
shown  by  its  small  and  insignificant  dimensions,  as  well  as  by  its 
Greek  name,  derived  from  <i>EpETpov,  which  carries  it  up  to  Romulus. 
There  is  no  Latin  word  from  which  Feretrius  can  be  derived,  the 
term  for  ^iperpov  in  that  tongue  being  ferculam.     The  Temple  of 
Jupiter  Stator  may  be  a  more  doubtful  matter.    The  Consul  Atilius 
in  the  Samnite  Avar,  A.U.C.  idS^  is  also  said  to  have  vowed  a  temple 
to  that  deity. ^ 

Almost  every  writer  on  Roman  history  admits  a  Sabine  war  and 
union.  Even  Mommsen  allows  such  a  union,  though  before  the 
foundation  of  Rome ;  and,  as  he  describes  it  as  a  forced  union,  we 
may  suppose  that  it  was  preceded  by  a  war.  But  his  account  of 
the  matter,  besides  being  unsupported  by  a  single  scrap  of  evidence 
or  tradition,  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable.  Sir  G.  Cornewall 
Lewis  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  only  writer  who,  consistently  with 
his  principle  of  regarding  the  entire  early  history  of  Rome  to  be 
without  foundation,  withholds  his  assent  to  the  Sabine  war,  and 
consequent  union. ^ 

The  amalgamation  of  two  races  into  one  nation  is  an  historical 
event  so  striking  and  important,  that,  among  a  people  who  were 
not  absolutely  barbarians,  the  memory  of  it,  even  if  they  possessed 
not,  as  the  Romans  did,  the  art  of  writing,  may  be  supposed  capable 
of  surviving  several  centuries,  merely  by  oral  tradition.     And  the 
value  of  the  tradition  is  greatly  enhanced  when  we  find  it  pre- 
served, if  not  exactly  by  the  conquered  nation,  at  all  events  by  that 
on  which  the  union  had  been  forced.     The  national  vanity  of  the 
Romans  would  doubtless  have  willingly  ignored  the  event,  had  not 
the  memorials  of  it  been  too  numerous  and  too  strong  to  be  set 


aside. 

1  Liv.  X.  36,  37. 


s 


See  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  438. 


We  will  here  enumerate  some  of  the  material  evidences  of  the 
union,  without  going  into  those  which  must  have  manifested  them- 
selves to  every  Roman  in  their  language,  customs,  laws,  religious 
observances,  in  the  name  Quirites  coupled  with  and  equivalent  to 
^  that  of  Roniani,  d'c.  On  the  Quirinal  Hill,  which  had  changed  its 
ancient  name  of  Mons  Agonus  to  the  Sabine  one  of  Collis  Quirinalis,^ 
were — besides  the  Capitolium  Yetus  and  its  temple  to  Jupiter, 
Juno,  and  Minerva,  showing  tlie  city  on  the  Quirinal  to  be  a  sub- 
stantive city,  distinct  from  Rome — the  following  temples  or  fanes, 
sacred  to  Sabine  deities  :  that  of  Quirinus,  or  the  Sabine  Mars, 
from  which  the  hill  derived  its  name ;  that  of  Semo  Sancus,  the 
Latin  Dius  Fidius,  and  those  of  Flora,  Salus,  and  Sol. 

This  Sabine  city  on  the  Quirinal  could  not  have  existed,  as 
Niebuhr  suj^poses,  before  the  foundation  of  Rome.  It  is  the  height 
of  improbability,  that  Romulus  on  the  one  hand  should  have 
attempted  to  found  a  city  in  such  near  proximity  to  a  foreign  one, 
or,  on  the  other,  that  Tatius  and  the  Sabines  should  have  permitted 
him  to  do  so.  There  is  no  probable  way  of  accounting  for  two  dis- 
tinct cities  being  found  so  close  together  but  that  handed  down 
by  tradition;  namely,  that  the  Sabine  city  arose  after  the  two 
peoples  had  been  united  by  agreement  and  compact. 

The  Sabines  continued  to  retain  possession  of  the  Capitoline, 
which  they  had  conquered,  and,  indeed,  it  was  then  united  to  the 
Quirinal  by  a  tongue  of  land,  subsequently  removed  in  order  to 
make  way  for  Trajan's  Forum.  Hence  the  Janus  Geminus  at  the 
north-eastern  foot  of  the  Capitol,  afterwards  converted  by  Kuma 
into  a  temple,  the  famous  index  of  peace  and  war,  must,  from  its 
situation,  have  originally  formed  an  entrance  to  the  Sabine  city,  and 
this  is  certified  by  the  additional  name  of  Janus  Quirinus,  which 
we  frequently  find  attached  to  it.-  For  Quirinus  was  the  peculiar 
deity  of  the  Quirinal  Hill ;  and  therefore  his  name  would  hardly 
have  been  given  to  the  gate  had  it  been  a  gate  of  Rome,  as 
Schwegler  supposes.^ 

The  same  author  admits  the  storming  and  taking  of  the  Capito- 
line by  the  Sabines.*     But   if  the  Sabines   were  settled  on  the 

^  Festus,  p.  254. 

2  Suet.  Oct.  22  ;  Hor.  Car.  iv.  15,  9 ;  Macrob.  Sat.  i.  19.  The  view  in  the 
text  does  not  run  counter  to  Macrobius's  exphination  that  Janus  was  called 
(Quirinus,  "quasi  helloruni  potens,  ub  hasta  quam  Sabini  curim  vocant." 

»  Buch.  i.  S.  481.  *  Ibid.  S.  484. 


86 


IIISTOEY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


THE   THKEE   TKIBErf. 


87 


Quirinal  previously  to  that  event,  as  he  and  I^^iebuhr  assume,  it 
is  still  more  improbable  that  they  should  have  allowed  the  Eomans 
to  settle  on  the  Capitoline  than  on  the  Palatine.  For,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  Capitoline  and  the  Quirinal  were  then  vu'tually  one  hill. 
The  old  tradition  that  the  settlement  on  the  Quirinal  Avas  made 
afkr  the  war  is  the  only  probable  one. 

AVe  will  now  continue  the  history  after  the  amalgamation  of  the 
two  peoples,  down  to  the  death  of  Tatius. 


THE   SiVBINE   UNION   AND   CONSTITUTION. 

The  joyful  peace  so  suddenly  effected  by  the  Sabine  women 
after  so  terrible  a  war  rendered  them  still  dearer  to  their 
husbands  and  parents,  and  above  all  to  Eomulus  himself,  on 
which  account  he  affixed  their  names  to  the  thirty  curiie  into 
which  he  divided  the  x^eople.  The  number  of  the  women  was 
undoubtedly  larger  than  this ;  but  it  has  not  been  handed 
down  to  us  how  the  thirty  were  selected,  whether  according 
to  age,  or  the  position  and  dignity  of  their  husbands,  or 
simply  by  lot.  At  the  same  time  were  enrolled  three  centuries 
of  knights,  called  Kamnenses,  Titienses,  and  Luceres.  The 
Eanmenses  were  named  after  Eomulus ;  the  Titienses  after 
Titus  Tatius,  the  Sabine  king.  The  cause  and  origin  of  the 
name  Luceres  is  doubtful. 

So  far  Livy.  Cicero  further  says  that  Eomulus  also  divided 
the  people  into  three  tribes,  named  after  himself,  Tatius,  and 
Lucimio,  who  was  an  ally  of  Eomulus,  and  fell  in  the  Sabine 
war.^  And  as  Livy  himself  afterwards  mentions  the  existence 
of  these  three  tribes,^  we  may  suppose  that  he  knew  that  they 
were  instituted  at  this  time ;  and,  indeed,  there  is  no  other 
period  to  which  we  can  conveniently  assign  their  institution. 
The  names  of  them  appear  to  have  been  rather  loosely  used. 
The  members  of  that  named  after  Eomulus  were  sometimes 
called  Eamnes,  sometimes  Eanmenses.  The  former  name 
appears  in  the  passage  just  quoted  from  Livy,  and  both  in  the 

^  De  Kep.  ii.  8. 

2  "Ut   tres  antiqujB  tribus,    Ramiies,   Titienses,    Liieeres,    siuuu  (pia.Hpie 
augurem  habeant."— Lib,  x.  c.  6, 


■>- 


■M  ■ 


"S. 

•':■ .« 


( 
■'i 


V;" 


fu'. 


subjoined  passage  of  Varro.  ^  Those  named  after  Titus  Tatius 
we  find  called  Tatienses,  Titienses,  and  Tities.  The  first  two  of 
these  names  occur  in  the  passages  already  quoted.  The  name 
of  Tities  is  found  in  Yarro,  in  the  passage  cited  beloNV.'"^  Of 
the  Luceres  we  will  speak  in  the  Eemarks. 

After  the  amalgamation  of  the  two  peoples,  the  reign  of  the 
two  kings  was  not  only  common  but  concordant.  After  a  few 
years  had  elapsed,  some  relations  of  King  Tatius  struck  the 
ambassadors  of  the  Laurentines ;  and  when  these  demanded 
the  redress  due  to  them  by  the  law  of  nations,  Tatius  ^^'as 
deterred  from  affording  it  by  the  entreaties  of  his  relatives  and 
the  love  which  he  bore  towards  them.  But  by  this  conduct 
he  only  brought  down  upon  his  own  head  the  punishment  due 
to  them  :  for,  having  gone  to  a  solemn  sacrifice  at  Lavinium, 
he  was  set  upon  and  killed.  Eomulus  is  said  to  have  borne 
this  matter  with  more  equanimity  than  became  him ;  either 
because  he  thought  that  Tatius  had  been  not  unjustly  killed, 
or  because  a  partition  of  the  ^supreme  power  can  never  be 
trusted. 

Eemarks. — Schwegler  observes,^  that  the  tradition  makes  the 
union  very  speedily  completed,  and  that,  according  to  all  inner  pro- 
bability, it  must  have  taken  a  much  longer  time  to  effect  it.  He 
does  not,  however,  bring  forward  this  as  an  objection  to  the  funda- 
mental truth  of  the  story,  Avliich,  on  the  contrary,  he  accepts.  We 
are  of  opinion  that  objections  like  this  sometimes  arise  fiom  want 
of  considering  the  simplicity  of  early  ancient  life  as  compared  with 
our  own,  and  the  small  numbers  which  are  dealt  with.  It  is  pos- 
sible, however,  that  the  time  may  have  been  longer,  and  that  tradi- 
tion has  given  us  only  the  results. 

The  same  author  thinks  that  the  relation  of    the  tw^o  united 

^  "  Agcr  Itomanus  iH'imum  divisus  ill  parteLs  tris,  a  quo  Tin  bus  appcllata 
Tatieiisiuiu,  liuuiniuin,  Luceriim,  uominatLe,  ut  ait  Kiiiiius,  Tatienses  a  Tatio, 
Kainiieuses  a  Ilomulo,  Luceres,  ut  Junius,  a  Lueumoiie.'' — Ling.  Lat.  v.  §  55 
^eil.  Miill.). 

-  "  Tribani  militim,  quod  tcrni  tribus  tribubus  Kamnium,  Lueenun,  Titiuiu 
olim  ad  exercitum  niittebantur."— Ibid.  §  81 ;  cf.  §  91.  Though  some  MS8. 
have  an  ahere— tacium,  taccium,  tatium.  From  this  passage  we  may  infer 
ihat  the  institution  of  the  tribes  was  for  military  purposes. 

■i  B-ieh  ix.  S.  11. 


1 


88 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   KOME. 


THE   UNITED   KINGDOM. 


89 


peoples  was  at  first  only  federative  and  isopolitical ;  they  did  not 
form  a  single  state  in  common,  but  a  confederacy.  This  is  apparent 
from  the  fact  that  each  state  retains  its  own  king.  ]Moreover,  a 
credible,  or  at  all  events  a  sensibly  devised,  tradition  tells  us  that 
the  two  kings  did  not  immediately  consult  together  about  their 
common  affairs,  but  that  each  of  them  had  his  own  senate  of  one 
hundred  men,  with  whom  he  first  took  counsel  apart ;  and  it  was 
after  this  that  they  met  together  for  the  purpose  of  coming  to  reso- 
lutions in  common.  If  this  is  well  founded— and  internal  proba- 
bility speaks  hi  its  favour— then  the  later  constitution,  which  re- 
cofmises  only  one  king,  one  senate,  and  one  assembly  of  the  people, 
was  a  w^ork  of  gradual  assimilation,  and  must  have  been  produced 
by  a  series  of  mediations.  It  must  have  taken  much  longer  time  to 
accomplish  the  religious  union  of  the  two  peoples.  It  may  have 
been  centuries  before  all  differences  on  this  subject  were  reconciled, 
and  the  Eoman  sacra  completely  fused  with  the  Sabine. 

On  this  we  may  remark  that  there  are  no  traces  of  a  double 
kingdom,  except  for  the  short  period  of  the  life  of  Tatius.     It  can 
hardly  be  imagined  that  if  the  double  kingdom  had  lasted  a  consi- 
derable time,  tradition  should  have  preserved  no  memory  of  it. 
After  the  death  of  Tatius  we  hear  only  of  single  kings,  alternately 
Sabine  and  Eoman  3    but  this  alternation  of  the  two  races  shows 
that  there  could  have  been  no  motive  for  concealing  a  joint  reign, 
had  there  really  been  one.     It  is  impossible  to  draw  any  conclusion 
from  the  symbolical  empty  throne,  with  sceptre  and  crown,  which, 
according  to  a  tradition  preserved  by  Servius,^  Eomulus  placed  next 
his  own.     Servius  himself  assigns  the  empty  throne  to  Kemus  ; 
Schwegler,-  after  Niebuhr,  considers  that  it  represented  the  dormant 
right  of  one  of  the  two  peoples.     But  even  if  this  view  be  the 
true  one,  it  admits  that  there  was  actually  only  one  king  of  both 
Ptomans  and  Sabines.     The    "sensibly  devised"  tradition — it  is 
astonishing  how  readily  the  sceptical  critics  adopt  such  traditions 
when  favourable  to  their  own  views — of  each  king  having  held  his 
own  separate  senate,  rests  only  on  the  authority  of  Plutarch,  and 
his  follower  Zonaras,^  and  is  totally  incompatible  with  the  other 
accounts  of  this  period,  such  as  the  institution  of  the  curiae,  &c. 
How  long  it  may  have  taken  to  effect  the  complete  religious  union 
of  the  two  peoples  it  is  impossible  to  say ;  but,  with  the  easy-going 


1  A.l  .Ell.  i.  2 


vi.  780. 


2  S.  488 ;  Anm.  3. 


M' 


j^Kj;'*! 


'^  Pint.  Rom.  20  J  Zonar.  vii.  4. 


■    ,', 


;  I.  , 


faith  of  pnganism,  the  participation  of  such  sa  in  as  were  necessary 
to  ecpial  political  rights,  was  probably  immediate.  Cicero,  at  least, 
who  must  have  been  a  better  judge  of  such  a  subject  than  a  modern 
writer,  finds  no  difficulty  in  this  way.^ 

In  their  relation  also  as  towns,  Schwegler  proceeds  to  observe, 
the  original  separation  only  gradually  ceased :  Pome  and  the  Quiri- 
tian  settlement  may  have  existed  for  a  long  while  side  by  side  as 
separate  towns.  Niebuhr  has  given  several  examples  of  towns  so 
separated  by  walls  :  as  the  Phoenician  Tripolis  of  the  Sidonians, 
'J'yrians,  and  Aradians  ;  in  the  Middle  Ages  the  old  and  new  towns 
of  Dantzic ;  and  the  three  independent  towns  of  Kouigsberg,  &:c.- 
Dionysius  tells  us,'^  that  after  the  union  the  swampy  valley  between 
the  Capitoline  and  Palatine  was  filled  up  with  earth  and  converted 
into  a  market-place  ;  which  may  be  true,  but  we  must  not  think  of 
a  Forum  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term.  AVe  must  also  suppose 
that,  after  the  complete  union  of  the  two  towirs,  a  new  Pomanium 
was  drawn,  and  a  new  miuidus  laid ;  but  it  may  be  c^uestioned 
whether  the  Temple  of  Yesta  was  first  placed  outside  of  Poma 
(Juadrata  after  this  enlargement.  Tradition  also  refers  the  Sacra 
Yia  to  the  union  of  the  two  races ;  but  it  does  not  a2)pear  that  this 
explanation  is  well  founded. 

AVe  may  ask  whether  the  relations  of  the  two  peoples  were,  from 
the  commencement  of  their  union,  on  a  footing  of  political 
ei_[uality  ?*  Tradition  assumes  that  they  were  ;  and  it  is,  at  all 
events,  an  incontestable  fact  that  the  Pamnes  and  Titles  were  sub- 
se(piently  on  such  a  footing.  This  appears  from  the  double  king- 
dom, from  the  alternation  of  Poman  and  Sabine  kings  which  fol- 
lowed it,  and  from  the  equal  representation  of  both  races  in  the 
Senate,  the  equestrian  order,  and  the  priesthood.  The  Luceres,  on 
the  other  hand,  appear  to  have  been  an  mferior  race. 

It  is  another  question  whether  this  equality  was  not  the  fruit  of 
a  long  struggle.  And  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  many 
traces  of  the  Pomans  having  been  originally  subordinate  to  the 
Sabines.     In  favour  of  this  view  there  is,  first,  the  general  proba- 

*  "Quo  fceJere  et  Sabiiios  iu  civitatcm  ascivit,  sacris  communicatis." — De 
Rep.  ii.  7. 

2  Niebulir,  Rom.  Gesch.  B.  i.  S.  305  f. 

3  Lib.  ii.  c.  50. 

*  The  assertion  of  Servius  (ad  JEn.  viii.  709)  that  the  Sabiues  had  all  the 
rights  of  Roman  citizensliip,  except  tlie  sufragiam  for  the  creation  of  magi- 
strates, seems  undeserving  of  attention. 


90 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


bility  tliat  the  little  town  upon  the  Palatine  would,  in  the  long  run, 
have  been  as  little  able  to  resist   the  victorious  advance  of  the 
Sabines  as   the  other  towns  of  the  valley  of  the  Tiber  and  the 
Anio.     This  idea  seems  even  to  have  occurred  to  some  of  the  an- 
cient writers  j  and  thus,  for  instance,  A\41eius  Paterculus^  thinks, 
that  to  have  averted  such  a  catastrophe,  Pvomulus  must  have  been 
aided  by  the  legions  of  his  grandfather,  Xumitor.     Niebuhr  is  of 
opinion  that  Kome  must  have  been  subject  to  the  Sabines.^     The 
same  state  of  things  is  apparent  through  the  veil  wliich  the  common 
tradition  endeavours  to  throw  over  these  events  :  the  Sabines  have 
seized  the  citadel,  and  Eome  stands  on  the  brink  of  destruction.    It 
is  probably  from  the  memory  of  this  subjection  that  Tatius  appears 
to  have  been  hateful  to  the  Pvomans  :  Ennius  ^  calls  him  '*  tyrant ; " 
and,  from  his  refusal  to  punish  a  breach  of  international  law,  he  is 
slain  at  Lavinium,  the  city  of  the  Lares  and  Penates  of  Latium. 
It  has  also  been  observed  by  Huschke,  and  others,  that  when  all 
the  three  tribes  are  mentioned  together,  the  most  knowing  archaeo- 
logists,  as  a  rule,  place  the  Tities  first :  an  order  of  precedence 
which  does  not  seem  to  be  altogether  accidental,  as  the  Luceres,  for 
instance,  are  as  regularly  put  last.^     A  still  more  decisive  proof  of 
the  subjection  of  the  Eonians  at  first  would  be  the  collective  name 
of  Quuites,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  this  name  originally  belonged 
only  to  the  Sabines  of  the  Quirinal ;  for  otherwise  the  conciueror 
always  imposes  his  name  on  the  conquered.     Lastly,  the  name  of 
Qiiirinus,  given  to  the  deified  liomulus,  is  a  significant  indication  of 
the  original  precedence  of  the  Sabine  race. 

Schwegler  is  also  of  opinion,  with  Kiebuhr,  that  the  tradition  of 
the  rape  of  the  Sabines  shows  a  time  when  the  city  on  the  Palatine 
did  not  enjoy  the  right  of  connuhium  with  the  city  on  the. Quirinal, 
and  therefore  must  have  been  inferior  to  it ;  till  at  length  subjected 
Pvome  extorted  the  right,— that  is,  political  equality,— by  arms. 

But,  however  this  may  be,  it  is  significant,  and  doubtless  not 
without  a  deep  historical  ground,  that  the  Eoman  tradition  always 
takes  its  stand  on  the  Palatine  city,  and  not  on  that  of  the  Sabine 
conquerors.  We  must  conclude  from  this  that  the  Palatine  Pome 
was  at  least  the  stem  and  stock  on  which  the  rest  was  grafted. 

1  Lib.  i.  8,  5. 

2  Rom.  Gesch.  i.  305  ;  cf.  Ihiie,  Foisclmiigeu,  S.  33.  ^  Ami.  i.  151. 

*  The  remark,  liowever,  does  not  hold  good  luiivcrsuUy,  as  Schwegler  him- 
self mentions  in  his  note,  and  as  we  have  ah-eady  seen  from  the  ([notation  from 
Yarro,  L.  L.  §  81,  where  the  Tities  are  pnt  last.     Above,  p.  87,  note  2. 


i-w  - 

■   '.V 


"J" 


THE    rALATINi:    AND   QUIRIXAL   CITIES. 


91 


V^\ 


AVith  a  good  deal  of  these  remarks  of  Schwcgler's  we  entirely 
concur.  AVe  think  that  Livy's  assertion,  tliat  the  whole  govern- 
ment was  assigned  to  Pome,  is  the  reverse  of  the  truth ;  and  that 
the  Pomans,  though  not  actually  conquered,  were  placed,  during 
the  reign  of  Tatius  at  least,  and  i)erhap3  for  a  considerable  period 
afterwards,  in  a  subordinate  position.-  To  the  reasons  adduced  by 
Schwegler  for  this  view,  the  following  ma}',  we  think,  be  added. 

The  tradition  that  makes  the  Sabine  women  rush  in  between  the 
combatants  was  probably  adopted  by  Livy  for  two  reasons  :  first,  it 
is  picturesque,  and  secondly,  it  obviates  the  embarrassing  question, 
AVhy,  if  the  Pomans  were  thus  driving  the  Sabines  before  them, 
did  they  stop  short  in  theii'  victorious  career,  and  not  complete  their 
success  by  regaining  possession  of  the  Capitoline  ]  There  is  another 
tradition  adopted  by  Cicero,  that  after  a  battle  of  varying  success 
and  undecided  result,  tliirty  of  the  Sabuie  women  were  de- 
spatched, with  the  consent  of  the  Ponian  Senate,  to  beg  a  peace 
from  their  countrymen.-  This  seems  more  accordant  with  the  state 
of  things  which  we  find  afterwards.  Thus,  when  the  people  are 
distributed  into  Curia),  these  are  designated  not  by  Poman  but  by 
Sabine  names,  showing  the  predominance  of  the  latter  race.  In 
like  manner  Tatius  dedicates  in  all  the  curite  a  table,  or  altar,  to 
Juno  Quiritia,  or  Curis,  which  tables,  Dionysius  tells  us,  were 
extant  in  his  time.^  Again,  all  the  transactions  during  the  joint 
reign  of  Pomulus  and  Tatius  are  conducted  by  the  latter  monarch, 
and  Pomulus  retreats  quite  into  the  background.  Thus  it  is 
Tatius  who  receives  the  Laurentine  ambassadors ;  it  is  to  Tatius, 
and  not  Pomidus,  to  whom  the  Laurentines  apply  to  redress  the 
insult  which  their  ambassadors  had  received  ;  and  it  is  Tatius  also 
who  proceeds  to  the  solemn  sacrifice  at  Lavinium,  though  that  was 
a  town  peculiarly  Latin,  if  not  Poman.  Dionysius,  indeed,  tells  of 
a  joint  expedition  by  Pomulus  and  Tatius  against  the  Alban  town 
of  Cameria,"^  wliich  they  subdued  and  converted  into    a  Poman 

^  How  much  more  the  later  Romans  prided  themselves  on  their  Ramnesian 
origin,  than  on  their  other  jirogenitors,  appears  from  the  speech  of  Canuleius  : 
"Hoc  si  poUuit  nobilitatem  istam  vestram,  (piam  pleriipie  oriundi  ex  Alhanis 
et  Sahiais,  own  gencrc  nee  sanguinCy  scd  per  co-optationem  in  Patrcs  habetis," 
&c. — Liv.  iv.  4. 

'■^  "  Matronis  ipsis,  (piaj  raptaj  erant,  orantibus,"  De  Rej).  ii.  7;  and,  **ex 
Sabinis  virgines  raptie — oratrices  pacis  et  fcederis,"  ib.  c.  8;  cf.  Dionys. 
ii.  45. 

^  Lib.  ii.  c.  50.  "*  liOC.  cit. 


92 


HISTORY   OF   THE  KINGS   OF  KOME. 


colony,  transferring  4,000  of  the  inhabitants  to  Eome.  But  we 
read  of  this  event  in  no  other  author,  and  Dionysius  is  little  to  be 
trusted  except  when  he  speaks  of  things  that  came  under  his  own 
knowledge  and  observation.  His  evidence  on  this  occasion  is  par- 
ticularly "suspicious,  as  we  find  him  afterwards  mentioning  Cameria 
as  reduced  by  Tarquin,  and  again  by  the  Consul  Yerginius.^  Be- 
sides, a  joint  military  expedition  of  this  kind  proves  notliing  as  to 
the  relative  superiority  or  inferiority  of  the  two  kings  in  the  in- 
ternal government  of  Rome. 

For  these  reasons,  as  well  as  for  some  of  those  stated  by 
Schwegler,  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  Eomulus  was  (luite  sub- 
ordinate during  the  lifetime  of  Tatius.  But  we  cannot  go  so  far  as 
Ihne,  Ampere,-  and  other  writers,  who  are  of  opinion  that  Eome 
was  absolutely  conquered.  Had  that  been  the  case  its  name  would 
liave  ceased  to  exist,  and  instead  of  a  history  from  the  Roman  point 
of  view,  we  should  have  had  one  from  the  Sabine  point  of  view. 
The  resumption  of  the  sole  power  by  Romulus,  after  the  death  of 
Tatius,  and  the  recurrence  after  Xuma  of  a  Roman  king,  show  that 
the  Roman  power  and  influence,  though  for  a  time  inferior,  had  not 

been  annihilated. 

We  may  here  remark,  that  originally  the  curiae  were  evidently  a 
Rumulean  institution  ;  however,  after  the  Sabine  union,  they  may 
have  been  altered  and  adapted  to  the  new  circumstances,  and  their 
number  increased.     The  early  Roman  constitution  was  little  more 
than  a  division  of  the  people  for  military  purposes.     In  fact,  the 
Romulean  population  were  to  all  intents  and  purposes  an  army,  of 
which  Romulus  was    the  supreme  and  irresponsible  commander. 
The  term  x>mf'l^  itself  seems  to  have  originally  signified  the  army. 
It  was  the  fighting  men  alone  who  at  first  enjoyed  any  civil  rights 
at  Rome,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  ancient  Germans ;  among  whom 
it  was  only  the  warriors  who  administrated  the  afiairs  of  State.^ 
In  process  of  time,  these  rights  were  gradually  extended  to  citizens 
who  did  not  belong  to  the  army,  and  hence  the  original  military 
signification  of  popuhis  became  ultimately  quite  obsolete,  and  de- 
noted the  Roman  people  instead  of  the  Roman  army.     Its  ancient 
signification,  however,  was  still  retained  in  some  cognate  words,  as 
jwpularey  to  lay  waste  ;  poiyidatioj  a  laying  waste  or  plundering,  &c. 

1  Lib.  iii.  51,  v.  40,  49.  ^  L'Hist.  Rom.  a  Rome,  t.  i.  p.  442,  seq. 

3  "  Nihil  eiiim  uecxue  publico  ncquo  privatte  rei  nisi  armati  agunt." — Tac. 
Geim.  13. 


THE   ORIGINAL  ROMAN   PEOrLE. 


93 


■'Mi  ■ 
'M- 


Before  the  Sabine  union,  the  army  of  Romulus  consisted  probably 
of  only  about  1,000  men,  distributed  into  ten  curia?,  each  containing 
100  men  under  a  curio,  or  captain  ;  and  this  company  again  divided 
into  tens  under  a  decurio.  Hence  the  name  of  miks  for  a  soldier — 
one  of  the  thousand.  When  we  consider  that  this  was  not  a 
standing  army,  but  composed  of  men  engaged  in  agricultural  and 
pastoral  pursuits,  such  an  arrangement  appears  an  excellent  one  both 
for  summonhig  an  army  quickly  to  the  field,  and  for  keeping  it  well 
in  hand  when  on  service  :  but  for  civil  purposes  it  would  have  been 
totally  useless  and  inexplicable. 

The  word  curio  evidently  comes  from  the  Greek  Kupto?,  a  lord  or 
master,  thus  showing  the  institution  to  be  Romulean.  Each  curia 
formed  a  sort  of  clan,  under  the  curio  as  its  head.  It  had  common 
sacra,  and  hence  the  curio  was  also  its  priest.  The  head-cjuarters  or 
places  of  assembly  for  these  clans  were  also  called  curiie.  Thus  we 
find  on  the  Palatine  hill  the  Curia)  Veteres  ;  the  position  of  which 
shows  that  they  were  Romulean,  while  the  epithet  vettns  proves 
that  they  were  antecedent  to  the  curiic  erected  after  the  Sabine 
union.  The  men  who  formed  the  ranks  were  called  clientes,  from 
the  Greek  k\vu),  to  hear,  which  is  synonymous  with  ohey.  Another 
proof  of  the  Greek  origin  of  the  institution. 

We  must  not,  however,  coiiioxxndi  i\\Q  pntpuhis,  or  primitive  Roman 
army,  with  the  exercitus  of  later  times.  It  rather  resembled  a 
feudal  militia.  All  were  bound  to  do  military  service,  when  re- 
quired, under  their  lord  j  but  in  peaceable  times  they  cultivated 
their  fields.  Hence  they  also  became  involved  in  civil  affairs,  by 
the  expenses  and  risks  of  agriculture,  losses,  disputes,  lawsuits,  &c. 
To  help  them  in  these  conjunctures  with  advice  and  money,  they 
had  recourse  to  the  head  of  their  gens,  or  clan,  whom  they  regarded 
as  a  sort  of  father,  and  called  patronus.  These  last  relations  be- 
tween patron  and  client  continued  to  subsist  to  a  late  period,  long 
after  the  primitive  relation  of  captain  and  common  soldier  had 
become  obsolete  and  forgotten. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  as  we  shall  show  further  on,  that  the 
clients  gave  their  votes  in  the  Comitia  Curiata,  or  assemblies  of  the 
curies.  But  the  clients  were  certainly  not  patricians,  and  conse- 
quently, in  opposition  to  the  dictum  of  Niebuhr,  the  term  2^opulas 
must  always  have  included  some  plebeians.  That  the  clients, 
although  they  voted  in  the  cuiiic,  were  plebeian,  ai)pears  from  a 
passage  in  Cicero,  where  he  tells  us  that  la  mulus  distributed  the 


94 


niSTOEY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF  KOME. 


THE   LUCERES. 


95 


plehs  into  cUenteJce  of  tlie  leading  men,  or  patricians. ^  The  clients, 
Iiowever,  conld  not  have  constituted  the  whole  of  the  2)lehs.  There 
must  have  been  other  jilebeians  of  a  lower  grade,  who  did  not 
belong  to  the  anny,  ov  j'^ojudus,  and  who  had  not  the  franchise. 

The  division  of  the  people  into  curia?  was  an  arbitrary  political 
regulation ;  the  division  of  them  into  three  tribes  was  dictated  by 
the  nature  of  the  population.  This  may  be  the  reason  w^hy  Livy 
did  not  think  it  necessary  to  mention  the  formation  of  these  tribes. - 
Tliere  is  no  difficulty  about  the  Earanes  and  Tities  ;  the  former 
being  the  original  Greek  stock  of  Eomulus,  the  latter  the  Sabines  of 
Titus  Tatius.  But  of  what  the  Luceres  were  composed,  and  what 
was  the  origin  of  their  name,  have  been  matters  of  dispute.  Livy 
confesses  his  ignorance  on  the  subject.^  Many  writers  derive  the 
name  from  "  Lucumo,"  an  Etruscan,  and  ally  of  Eomulus,  who  fell 
in  the  Sabine  war;^  some  from  the  Lucus  Asyli,  the  origin  of  the 
refugee  part  of  the  population  ;5  and  one*^  from  Lucerus,  a  king  of 
Ardea,  who  aided  Eomulus  in  his  w^ar  against  Tatius.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  these  are  mere  guesses  founded  on  a  similarity  of  name  j 
and  Livy,  therefore,  very  sensibly  left  the  point  undecided.  The 
second  of  the  proposed  derivations  might  seem  the  most  probable  ; 
since  besides  the  Ramnes,  or  immediate  followers  of  Eomulus,  and 
the  Sabines  of  Tatius,  the  early  Eoman  population  must  have  also 
had  an  element  composed  of  the  shepherds  who  joined  Eomulus, 
and  the  refugees  who  flocked  to  his  asylum.  This  part  of  the 
population  would  naturally  have  been  considered  inferior  to  the 
rest ;  and  such  was  the  estimation  in  which  the  Luceres  stood.  It 
is,  however,  not  improbable  that  among  these  refugees  Avas  an 
Etruscan  Lucumo  named  Cseles  Vibenna,  or  C?elius  Yibennus,  with 
some  followers — [cum  sua  manu) — to  whom  the  !Mons  Querque- 
tulanus  was  assigned  as  a  place  of  residence,  and  deriv^ed  from  him 
the  name  of  the  Caelian  Hill."  AVe  can  hardly  imagine  that 
Eomulus  had  formed  any  regular  Etruscan  alliance  at  this  early 

1  "Et  liabuit  i)lebem  in  clieutelas  priucipum  descriptam."— De  Kt'ii.  ii. 
%  16. 

3  It  is  extraordinary  how  Schwegler  (S.  498,  Anm,  2)  can  charge  him  with 
being  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  these  tribes,  wlien  in  the  same  note  he 
♦quotes  the  passage  in  which  Livy  speaks  of  them  as  such.     (Lib.  x.  c.  6.) 

3  Lib.  i.  c.  13. 

4  Cic.  De  Kep.  ii.  8  ;  Yarr.  L.  L.  v.  55 ;  Trop.  iv.  1,  29,  &c. 

5  Pint.  Rom.  20  ;  Schol.  Pers.  i.  20.  6  Paul.  Diao.  \\  11?. 
'  Varr.  L.L.  v.  s.  46. 


w^- 


>i-i 
f  "• 


period ;  while  at  the  same  time  the  Mons  Coelius  appears  to  have 
obtained  its  name  before  the  time  of  ISTuma,  as  we  find  it  mentioned 
in  the  sacred  books  relating  to  the  Argive  chapels.^  The  assertion 
of  a  certain  tragic  poet  named  Volnius,  recorded  by  Yarro,^  that  all 
the  three  names  of  the  tribes  were  Tuscan,  is  altogether  absurd  and 
inadmissible. 

The  arguments  brought  by  Scliwegler  against  the  Luceres  having 
been  thus  composed,  do  not  appear  to  us  to  be  of  much  weight. 
He  is  of  opinion  that  the  formation  of  a  tribe  out  of  such  fugitives, 
with  land  assigned  to  it,  and  furnishing  members  to  the  Equites,  is 
not  to  be  thought  of.^  But  among  these  fugitives  may  have  been 
political  refugees  of  condition,  like  Cscles  Yibenna.  It  is,  at  all 
events,  as  likely  that  one  of  the  Eoman  tribes  should  have  been 
formed  out  of  these  persons,  whom  Eomulus  had  invited  to  his 
hospitality,  as  subsequently  out  of  the  conquered  Albans,  which  is 
Schwegler's  improbable  supposition.  In  order  to  support  that 
l)osition,  Schwcgler  can  point  out  what  a  subordinate  place  the 
Luceres  held  ;  and  shows,  that  though  they  were  admitted  among 
the  knights,  yet  a  king  was  never  taken  from  them,  as  from  the 
other  two  tribes,  and  that  they  were  not  represented  in  the  senate 
or  the  priesthood.'*  Eut  these  arguments  are  equally  good  for  the 
Luceres  having  been  refugees. 

Schwegler's  arguments,  derived  from  there  being  no  traces  of 
early  Etruscan  influence  in  the  Latin  language  or  religion,''  do  not 
affect  our  view ;  because  we  do  not  assume  that  a  large  Etruscan 
colony  settled  at  Eome  on  this  occasion,  but  only,  among  other 
refugees,  though  perhaps  the  most  distinguished  of  them,  an  Etrus- 
can Lucumo  with  a  few  followers.  The  circumstance  of  there 
having  been  a  second  and  more  regular  Etruscan  settlement  at 
Itome  would  be  no  good  argument  against  a  former  one  ;  and  in 
such  remote  traditions  that  the  name  of  Cailes  Yibenna  may  have 
been  connected  with  both  is  not  very  extraordinary. 

The  division  of  a  people  iuto  three  tribes  merely  for  political 
and  administrative  purposes,  and  not  from  any  ditterence  of  race, 
appears  to  have  been  a  frequent  Grecian  practice,  and  especially 
among  the  Dorians.®  AYe  might  avail  ourselves  of  this  circumstance 
in  support  of  our  theory  of  the  Grecian  origin  of  Eome.     We  are 

1  Varr.  L.  L.  v.  47.  ^  i|,ia.  s.  55.  ^  j^.  j.  s.  506. 

*  Buch.  i.  S.  514.  «  j^i^.  509,  scq. 

*»  See  the  examples  collected  by  Schwegler,  13.  ix.  §.  14. 


96 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KIXGS   OF   EO.ME. 


of  opinion,  however,  as  we  liave  said  before,  tliat  this  threefokl 
division  arose  at  Kome  from  an  actual  diversity  of  race.  That  the 
Eomans  had  been  divided  into  three  tribes  before  their  union  with 
the  Sabines,  though  asserted  by  Dionysius  in  his  imaginary  sketch 
of  the  Eoman  constitution,  is,  as  Schwegler  has  shown,  entirely 
contrary  to  the  remainder  of  the  tradition.  The  thirty  curiai  can- 
not be  brought  into  accordance  with  the  hundred  patres  of  tlie 
Itomulean  senate,  or  the  thousand  original  settlers  on  the  Palatine. 
The  notion  is  also  confuted  by  the  undoubted  identity  of  the  Titles 
with  the  Sabines  ;  whilst  Dionysius  nowhere  ventures  to  give  the 
names  of  the  three  Romulean  tribes.^ 

A  better  argument  for  Grecian  origin  may  be  derived  from  other 
parts  of  the  Eomulean  constitution  ;  and  the  Eomans  are  parti- 
cularly said  to  have  imitated  the  Lacedaemonians.'^  It  was  not, 
however,  imitation,  but  liereditary  custom.  Dionysius  has  pointed 
out  several  particulars  in  which  the  Itomulean  constitution  re- 
sembled the  Spartan  :  as  the  division  of  the  people  into  curia,', 
with  common  sacra  for  each,  a  curia,  or  curial  house,  in  which  they 
feasted  together  on  festivals,  and  a  hall,  like  the  Greek  Prytanea^ 
common  to  all  the  curia3.  The  body-guard  of  Itomulus  had  also  a 
Spartan  prototype.  Dionysius  likewise  found  a  resemblance  between 
the  relations  of  liomulus  and  the  Spartan  kings  to  their  senates ; 
but  on  this  pomt  we  shall  not  insist,  as  he  totally  misunderstood 
this  part  of  the  Eoman  Constitution.^  The  number  three,  com- 
bined with  ten,  3,  30,  300,  also  plays  a  great  part  in  the  institutions 
of  both  peoples. 

We  will  here  add  a  few  words  respecting  the  agrarian  constitu- 
tion of  Romulus. 

Dionysius  tells  us  ^  that  Eomulus,  after  setting  apart  a  portion  of 
the  Eoman  territory  for  the  support  of  the  crown  and  of  the 
service  of  the  temples,  and  another  portion  as  common  land,  divided 
the  rest  into  thirty  equal  parts,  and  assigned  one  of  them  to  each  of 
the  thirty  curiie.  We  are  disposed  to  believe  this  account  because 
it  tallies  with  scattered  notices  which  we  find  in  Latin  authors. 
Thus  Cicero  says,  that  large  tracts  of  arable  land,  pasturage,  and 
wood,  were  set  apart  as  royal,  and  were  cultivated  for  the  use  of  the 


^  Schwegler,  Band  i.  S.  504  ;  cf.  Dionys.  ii.  7. 

2  /xiixT}a-diJt.eyoi  Kard.  Trdi/ra  rrju  AaKidaifioviui/  TroAtretW  oI'Pw/uloioi. — Athcii.  vi. 
106. 

3  See  Dionys.  lib.  ii.  c.  13,  14,  23.  "*  ii.  7  ;  iii.  1. 


ALLOTMENT   OF   LAND. 


97 


kings,  in  order  that  they  might  not  be  distracted,  by  the  necessity 
of  providing  for  their  own  sux)port,  from  devoting  their  wliole 
attention  to  the  affairs  of  the  people,  and  more  particularly  to  the 
administration  of  justice,  of  which  they  were  the  fountain.^  The 
division  of  the  land  among  the  people  is  confirmed  by  Yarro  and 
others.  2  To  each  member  of  a  curia  were  allotted  two  jugtra^ 
"which,  because  on  the  death  of  the  holder  they  fell  to  his  heir,  were 
called  heredium.^ 

Schwegler  objects  to  this  account*  that  it  is  merely  adopted 
by  the  Eoman  waiters  from  the  ancient  practice  in  founding 
colonies,  when  to  each  man  was  assigned  a  couple  of  acres  ;  and 
that  this  practice  has  been  retrospectively  attributed  to  Eomulus. 
But  it  seems  much  more  probable  that  the  practice  may  have 
descended  from  antiquity  than  that  a  variety  of  writers  should  have 
conspired  to  attribute  to  more  ancient  times  a  comparatively  modern 
custom.  Objections  like  this  arise  only  from  a  settled  determina- 
tion to  represent  every  circumstance  of  the  ancient  history  as  forged 
or  invented.  In  fact,  we  know  that  the  Eoman  colonies  were 
imitations  in  miniature  of  Eome  itself,  and  that  all  their  institutions 
were  modelled  after  those  of  the  metropolis.^ 

Before  we  quit  this  part  of  the  subject,  we  must  say  a  few  words 
about  the  name  of  Quirites, 

Livy  tells  us,^  that  by  way  of  concession  to  the  Sabines  they 
were  called  Quirites,  from  the  town  of  Cures.  This  is  of  a  piece 
with  the  rest  of  his  history  of  the  Sabine  war  and  union,  in  which 
he  endeavours  to  extenuate — though  perhaps  in  this  following  his 
ancient  authorities — all  that  might  tend  to  the  humiliation  of  the 
Eomans.  Cures  is  the  name  of  a  place,  and,  according  to  all  ac- 
cuunts  of  the  place,  whence  the  victorious  Sabines  came  ;  and 
accordingly  such  a  concession  would  amount  only  to  this,  that  the 
Sabines,  who  evidently  had  the  upper  hand,  wxre  allowed  to  retain 


^  "Jusprivati  petere  solebant  a  regibus  :  ob  casque  causas  agri  arvi  et  arbusti 
et  pascui  lati  atque  uberes  definiebautur,  qui  assent  regii,  qui  colerenturque 
sine  regum  opera  et  labore,  ut  eos  nulla  privati  negotii  cura  a  popiiloruni 
rebus  abduceret." — De  Rep.  v.  2. 

2  "Bina  jugera  a  Eomulo  primum  divisa  viritim,"  &c. — R.  R.  i.  10,  2. 
*'Bina  tunc  jugera  populo  Romano  satis  erant,  nullique  majorem  moduni 
attribuit  (Romulus)."— Plin.  N.  H.  xviii.  2  ;  cf.  Paul.  Diac.  p.  53. 

3  Varr.  loc.  cit.  *  B.  i.  S.  450. 
e  See  G«Uius  xvi.  13,  8.  «  Lib.  i.  c.  13. 


98 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  ROME. 


tlieir  own  name,  instead  of  being  compelled  to  assume  that  of  the 
Eomans,  -who  were  evidently  inferior. 

Another  difficulty  is,  why,  if  Tatius  was  king  of  Cures,  should 
he  have  abandoned  his  sole  and  ancient  monarchy,  only  to  share 
the  regal  power  with  Eomulns  at  Rome  1 

But  the  ancients  had  another  derivation  of  Quirites  from  quitis, 
a  spear ;^  whence  the  name  would  signify  "spearmen,"  or 
*'  warriors."  Such  a  derivation  is  much  more  befitting  the  warlike 
Sabines  ;  and  after  all  it  would  only  put  them  on  a  level  with  the 
Romans,  seeing  that  the  term  "  Populus  Roraanus  "  meant  the  Roman 
army.  Professor  Newman,  who  maintains  a  Gaelic,  or  Celtic, 
mixture  in  the  ancient  Italian  populations,  observes  on  this  subject : 
**  We  happen  here  to  have  a  clue  which  the  Romans  had  not.  The 
Gaelic  language  has  numerous  words  in  common  with  the  Latin ; 
and  gives  us  Coir  (sounded  Qidr\  a  spear;  Curaidh,  a  warrior  ; 
the  similarity  of  which  to  Quir  and  Quirite  sets  at  rest  the  question 
what  Quirite  meant."  2  The  analogy  is  certainly  striking ;  but  as 
the  author  had  jnst  before  observ^ed,  "  that  until  it  is  shown  that 
Cures  cannot  also  have  come  from  the  same  root,  there  is  no  proved 
disagreement  in  the  two  explanations,"  it  is,  perhaps,  going  too  far 
to  say  that  the  question  is  entirely  set  at  rest. 

On  the  whole,  however,  we  accept  as  much  the  more  probable 
one  the  derivation  from  cun.%  or  qniris,  a  spear.  The  Sabines  were 
enrolled,  together  with  the  Romans  and  Luceres,  in  the  thirty 
curiae,  which  now  formed  the  military  force  of  the  entire  city  of 
some  3,000  men,  with  300  horse.  But  as  this  force  no  longer  con- 
sisted only  of  the  Populus  Romanus,  that  name  was  not,  indeed, 
abolished,  but  was  accompanied  with  one  of  e<iual  extent  and 
honour  taken  from  the  Sabine  tongue,  and  the  whole  army  was 
called  "  Populus  Romanus  Quirites." 

It  is  a  nice  point  whether  this  may  have  meant  "  the  Roman 
people  and  the  Quirites."  The  omission  of  the  copula  is  not  at  all 
unusual  in  Latin,  and  is  constantly  seen  in  the  familiar  address 
*'  Patres  Conscripti,"  stan<ling  for  "  Patres  et  Conscripti."  But  we 
think  that  in  the  present  case  there  is  a  mere  apposition,  and  not  an 

1  Ovid.  Fa«t.  ii.  475;  Taul.  Diac.  p.  49,  curis ;  Plut.  Rom.  29;  Macrob. 
Sat.  i.  9,  &c.  AVe  learn  from  Dionysius  (i.  48 /?i.)  that  Varro  also  knew  this 
dorivation  (/c^pet?  yh.p  ol  2a)87fot  ra?  alxfiots  KaXovaiv),  but  it  does  not  appear 
in  his  extant  works,  except  mediately  through  Quiriuus  ;  which  he  derives 
Jfrom  Quiritibus. — Lib.  v.  8,  73. 

'  Regal  Rome,  p.  65,  seqq. 


ROMANI  AND   QUIRITES. 


99 


addition.  Tliis  is  shown  by  the  formula  which  frequently  occurs 
of  "  Populus  Romanus  Quiritium,"^  where  the  Romani  and  Quirites 
are  identified.  !N'or  can  this  latter  form  be  a  corruption,  as  some 
critics  have  thought,  since  in  the  following  passage  of  Livy  we 
also  find  the  two  words  identified,  though  in  a  different  manner. 
It  relates  to  the  Patres  devoted  to  death  at  the  time  of  the  Gallic 
invasion  :  "  Sunt,  qui  M.  Fabio  Pontifice  ^laximo  proefante  carmen, 
devovisse  eos  se  pro  patria  Quiritibusque  Romanis,  tradant,"  ^ 
where  Romanis  is  evidently  an  adjective — the  Roman  Quirites. 
"We  might  here  also  add  the  many  occasions  on  which  Quirites 
stands  for  the  whole  of  the  Romans. 

In  fact,  after  the  amicable  union  of  the  Romans  and  Sabines,  it 
would  have  been  keeping  up  a  memory  of  their  ancient  feud  to  call 
one  part  of  the  people  Romans  and  another  Quirites.  As  individual 
citizens  the  name  Romanus  was  naturally  applied  to  all,  both 
Romans  and  Sabines,  because  the  name  of  the  city  continued  to  be 
Roma,  and  an  inhabitant  of  it  must  therefore  have  been  a  Romanus. 
But  this  common  name  for  Romans  and  Sabines  individually  is 
another  presumption  that  they  had  not  separate  names  collectively. 

In  process  of  time,  however,  and  when  the  constitution  of  the 
army  had  been  altered,  the  name  Quirites,  like  Populus,  entirely 
lost  its  military  signification,  and  retained  only  its  civil  meaning,  to 
denote  those  who  enjoyed  civil  rights,  as  the  suffragiuiriy  &c.  ; 
which  were  originally  vested  only  in  the  men  who  bore  arms. 
Thus  it  became  at  last  the  usual  appellation  of  the  Romans,  when 
addressed  collectively  in  their  civil  capacity ;  probably  because  it 
was  shorter  than  *'  Populus  Romanus  Quirites,"  and  because  Quirites 
was  more  direct  and  personal  than  Populus.  Nay,  the  word  not 
only  lost  its  original  meaning  of  "  warrior,"  or  "  soldier,"  but  became 
at  length  entirely  opposed  to  it;  as  we  learn  from  the  anecdote  of 
Csesar  quelling  a  mutiny  and  insubordination  of  the  Decumani, 
merely  by  calling  them  Quirites  instead  of  miUtes;  which  so  hurt  their 
military  pride  that  they  became  as  docile  and  obedient  as  lambs.3 

On  the  whole,  the  names  Romani  and  Quirites,  which  remained 
in  the  language  many  centuries,  and  were  pretty  nearly  equivalent, 
must  be  regarded  as  the  strongest  possible  proof  of  the  truth 
of  the  accounts  of  the  Sabine  union  given  by  the  historians. 
There  is  no  probable  way  of  accounting  for  this  double  name, 

^  For  instances  see  Becker,  Handb.  der  Rom.  Alt.  B.  ii.  i.  21,  ff. 
2  Lib.  V.  c.  41.  3  Suet,  in  Jul.  c.  70. 

H  2 


100 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


except  by  tlie  union  of  two  peoples  ;  and  that  a  union  effected  "by 
treaty  and  agreement,  and  not  by  force  ;  for  in  the  latter  case,  which 
would  have  been  one  of  conquest  and  subjugation,  the  name  of  the 
conquered  nation  would  have  vanished,  and  that  of  the  victors  would 
alone  have  been  preserved. 

We  will  now  return  to  the  course  of  the  history  after  the  death 
of  Tatius. 


REMAINDER   OF   THE   REIGN   OF   ROMULUS. 

Komulus  abstained  from  avenging  the  death  of  Tatius  by  a 
war;  though  to  expiate  the  wrong  suffered  by  the  ambas- 
sadors, and  the  murder  of  the  king,  he  renewed  the  alliance 
which  existed  between  Eome  and  Lavinium.  On  this  side, 
therefore,  there  was  an  unexpected  peace  ;  but  another  and 
much  nearer  war  broke  out  almost  at  the  gates  of  Eome.  It 
was,  indeed,  this  close  vicinity  that  occasioned  the  hostilities.^ 
For  the  Fidenates,  thinking  that  the  neighbouring  city  was 
growing  too  strong,  seized  the  occasion  to  make  war  before 
Home  should  have  arrived  at  that  pitch  of  strength  which  it 
promised  to  attain.  Wherefore  they  made  a  sudden  incursion 
into  the  Eoman  territory,  and  on  the  side  of  the  Tiber  laid 
waste  all  that  lies  between  the  two  cities  ;  then,  turning  to 
tlie  left,  they  continued  their  ravages,  to  the  great  alarm  of 
the  rural  population.  The  tumult  and  trepidation  of  the 
husbandmen,  as  they  rushed  into  the  city,  brought  the  first 
news  of  the  matter.  Eomulus  at  once  led  forth  his  army,  and 
indeed  so  close  a  war  admitted  of  no  delay.  Having  pitched 
his  camp  about  a  mile  from  Fidena3,  and  left  a  moderate  gar- 
rison to  guard  it,  he  took  the  field  with  all  his  remaining 
soldiers.  Placing  a  part  of  them  in  ambush  at  a  spot  con- 
cealed by  thick  brushwood,  with  the  greater  part  of  his 
troops  and  all  his  horse,  he  approached  Fidenoe  ;  and  by 
sending  his  cavalry  up  to  the  very  gates,  and  threatening  a 
tumultuous  and  disorderly  attack,  he  obtained  his  object  of 
drawing  out  the  enemy.  This  display  of  a  cavalry  engage- 
ment made  the  flight  which  it  was  his  design  to  feign  less 

^  Fidense  was  only  five  miles  from  Rome,  on  the  same  bank  of  tlie  Tiber,  but 
higher  up,  at  the  present  Castel  Giubileo. 


WAR  WITH   FIDENiE. 


101 


surprising.  Wliilst  his  horse  seemed  hesitating  between 
attack  and  retreat,  the  foot  also  began  to  give  way ;  when  the 
enemy  rushing  suddenly  forth  from  the  crowded  gates,  and 
driving  before  them  the  Eoman  line,  are  drawn  by  the  ardour 
of  pursuit  to  the  place  of  ambush.  The  Eomans  concealed 
there  suddenly  rise,  and  charge  the  pursuing  enemy  in  flank ; 
whose  panic  is  increased  by  seeing  the  garrison  that  had  been 
left  in  the  camp  advancing  to  the  attack.  The  Fidenates,  ter- 
rified by  the  danger  which  threatened  them  on  all  sides,  took 
to  flight  almost  before  Eomulus  and  his  cavalry  could  wheel 
round  their  horses  ;  and  they  endeavoured  to  regain  their  city 
in  a  much  more  disorderly  rout  than  the  feigned  one  of  the 
Eomans  ;  for  theirs  Avas  real.  But  they  could  not  escape  their 
pursuers.  Eomulus  was  close  at  their  heels,  and,  before  they 
could  close  the  gates,  broke  in  with  them  in  one  troop.  Thus 
was  Fidense  taken,  and  made  a  Eoman  colony.^ 

The  Yeientines  were  contagiously  irritated  by  this  war, 
as  well  as  from  their  consanguinity  to  the  Fidenates;  for 
according  to  Livy  the  Fidenates  were  Etruscans,  though  most 
other  writers  make  them  Latins.  The  proximity  of  the  war 
also  served  still  further  to  irritate  them,  as  the  Eoman  arms 
seemed  to  threaten  hostility  to  all  who  were  nearest  them. 
Eesolving,  therefore,  to  bring  matters  to  a  settlement,  they 
invaded  the  Eoman  territory  more  in  the  manner  of  a  depre- 
datory incursion  than  of  regular  warfare.  They  neither 
pitched  any  camp  nor  awaited  the  Eomans,  but  returned  to 
Veii,  carrying  off  tvith  them  the  booty  which  they  had  seized 
in  the  fields.  The  Eomans  hereupon,  finding  no  enemy  in 
their  tenitory,  pass  the  Tiber,  resolved  and  intent  upon 
Avar  to  the  last  extremity.  But  when  the  Veientines  heard 
that  they  were  pitching  a  camp,  and  intended  to  attack 
their  city,  they  went  forth  to  meet  them,  preferring  to  tr}^ 
the  fortune  of  the  open  field,  to  contending  within  their  walls 
for  their  homes  and  hearths.  In  the  battle  which  ensued, 
Eomulus   was   victorious,   without   having  recourse   to   any 

1  Livy  does  not  state  so  here  (lib.  i.  c.  14);  but  it  is  mentioned  by  Dio- 
nysius  (lib.  ii.  c.  53) ;  and  we  find  Fidenre  alluded  to  by  Livy  as  a  Romaa 
colony  a  little  further  on  (c.  27). 


102 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


LAST   DAYS   OF   ROMULUS. 


103 


stratagem,  and  merely  through  the  superior  qualities  of  his 
veteran  troops.  He  pursued  the  routed  enemy  to  their  gates, 
but  abstained  from  attacking  so  well  fortified  a  to\\ai,  and 
one,  too,  that  was  defended  by  its  very  site.  So  he  contented 
himself  with  laying  waste  the  Veientine  tenntory,  as  he 
returned,  from  a  motive  of  revenge  rather  than  the  desire  of 
booty.  The  Yeientines,  tamed  no  less  by  their  losses  than 
by  their  defeat,  sent  ambassadors  to  Home  to  beg  a  peace. 
A  truce  of  a  hundred  years  was  granted  them,  but  they  were 
mulcted  in  part  of  their  territory.  Dionysius  says  ^  that  the 
district  ceded  was  the  Septem  Pagi,  and  that  the  treaty  was 
engraved  on  columns. 

Such  were  the  domestic  and  military  transactions  of  the 
reign  of  Eomulus  ;  in  which,  whether  we  consider  his  courage 
in  recovering  his  grandfather's  kingdom — as  the  ordinary 
tradition  relates — or  his  wisdom  in  building  his  city,  and  in 
strengthening  it  by  his  wars  and  treaties,  there  was  nothing 
at  variance  with  the  belief  of  his  divine  origin  or  of  his  own 
apotheosis  after  death.  From  such  beginnings  Rome  grew 
so  strong,  that  during  the  forty  ensuing  years  she  enjoyed 
uninterrupted  peace.  Komidus  was  more  beloved,  however, 
by  the  populace  than  by  the  patricians,  but  most  of  all  was 
he  endeared  to  the  soldiers.  It  was  perhaps  on  this  account 
that,  in  peace  as  well  as  war,  he  had  always  a  body-guard  of 
300  armed  men,  whom  he  called  Celeres. 

Eomulus,  after  performing  these  immortal  works,  had 
assembled  a  concio  at  the  lake,  or  marsh,  of  Caprne,  in  the 
Campus  Martins,  for  the  purpose  of  reviewing  his  army.  While 
he  was  thus  employed,  a  terrible  tempest  of  thunder  and 
lightning  suddenly  arose,  and  covered  the  king  with  so  thick 
a  darkness  that  the  assembly  could  no  longer  discern  him. 
Nor  was  he  again  seen  upon  earth.  The  Eoman  youth  having 
recovered  from  their  alarm,  when  the  storm  had  passed  over 
and  was  succeeded  by  a  calm  and  brilliant  sunshine,  beheld 
the  royal  throne  vacant.  The  Fathers,  who  had  stood  near 
the  king,  told  them  that  he  had  been  carried  up  to  heaven  in 
the  tempest ;  but,  though  they  doubted  not  this  affirmation, 

^  Lib.  ii.  c.  55.     The  same  author  makes  the  war  last  two  campnigns. 


I 


m 


fe^ 

w^^ 


m 


^■■ff 


m  ■ 

mi 


they  remained  for  some  time  dejected  and  sorrowful,  as  if 
they  had  suddenly  become  orphans.  At  length  the  whole  of 
them,  following  the  impidse  of  a  few,  hail  Eomulus  as  a  god, 
the  son  of  a  god,  the  king  and  parent  of  Eome ;  they  implore 
his  favour,  and  pray  that  he  will  ever  be  propitious  towards 
them,  his  offsprijig.  I  believe,  however,  that  there  were 
already  some  who  suspected  that  he  had  been  torn  to  pieces 
by  the  hands  of  the  Fathers ;  for  an  obscure  report  of  this 
kind  has  been  handed  down.  But  admiration  of  the  man, 
as  well  as  the  fear  and  awe  with  which  they  were  overcome, 
caused  the  other  account  to  prevail.  The  belief  of  it,  more- 
over, was  strengthened  by  the  contrivance  of  one  Proculus 
Julius  ;  who,  perceiving  the  sorrow  of  the  citizens  for  the  loss 
of  their  king,  and  their  anger  against  the  Fathers,  stepped 
forward  in  an  assembly  of  the  people,  and  trusting  that  his 
authority  would  add  weight  to  his  words,  even  in  so  extra- 
ordinary a  matter,  said :  "  0  Quirites,  Eomidus,  the  parent 
of  this  our  city,  having  suddenly  descended  from  heaven, 
appeared  to  me  this  morning  at  the  break  of  day.  Struck 
with  awe  and  veneration,  I  stood  still,  and  humbly  implored 
that  I  might  lift  up  my  eyes  towards  him.  Then  Eomulus 
said :  *  Go  tell  the  Eomans  it  is  the  will  of  the  gods  that 
Eome,  which  I  have  founded,  should  be  the  head  of  all 
the  earth.  Let  them  therefore  cultivate  the  art  of  war ;  let 
them  know,  and  transmit  to  their  posterity,  that  no  human 
power  can  resist  the  Eoman  arms.'  Having  thus  spoken,  he 
a<>ain  ascended  into  heaven."  It  is  w^onderful  what  belief 
this  story  acquired ;  and  how  much  the  regret  of  the  army 
and  the  j>/t'5s  for  Eomulus  w^as  mitigated  by  the  certaint}' 
of  his  immortality. 

The  reign  of  Eomulus  lasted  thirty-seven  years. 

As  a  ruler,  the  two  great  works  of  Eomulus  were  the 
foundation  of  the  Auspices  and  of  the  Senate.  He  is  repre- 
sented as  always  listening  to  the  counsels  of  the  latter.- 
He  kept  the  people  in  order  by  mulcting  them  in  cattle 
rather  than  by  severe  corporal  punishments. ^     He  was  the 

1  "Patrum  auctoritato  coiisilioque  regiiavit." — Cic.  De  l^ep.  U.  8. 

2  Ilml.O. 


f 

tT' 


104 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS  OF  ROME. 


APOTHEOSIS  OF  ROMULUS. 


lo: 


founder  of  the  Roman  military  s}'stem,  and  has  the  reputation 
of  having  been  a  very  warlike  prince ;  which  must  be  attri- 
buted to  his  military  success,  and  his  personal  prowess;  for, 
according  to  the  accounts  transmitted  to  us,  he  did  not  enter 
upon  a  single  aggressive  war.  All  his  wars  were  in  self- 
defence,  though  he  may  be  said  to  have  brought  upon  himself 
the  earlier  ones  by  the  rape  of  the  Sabines. 

Remarks. — On  the  end  of  Romulus  Schwegler  remarks:^  "One 
who  had  been  born  in  so  wonderful  a  manner  could  only  leave  the 
earth  by  miracle.  In  order  to  enhance  the  miraculous  nature  of  these 
occurrences,  the  moment  both  of  his  conception  and  of  his  death 
is  marked  by  an  eclipse  ;  a  coincidence  which  has  been  already 
observed  by  Dionysius^  and  Plutarch.^  The  Greek  mythology 
affords  a  parallel  in  the  story  of  Hercules ;  for  Hercides  also  is 
borne  to  heaven  by  a  thunder-cloud ;  where  he  is  reconciled  to  his 
enemy,  Hera,  and  marries  her  daughter  Hebe.  This,  or  a  smiilar, 
story  of  the  Greek  mythology  was  certainly  present  to  the  minds  of 
the  Roman  poets ;  since  the  idea  of  an  apotheosis  in  this  form  is 
originally  as  foreign  to  the  Italian  religion  as  the  idea  of  sexual 
intercourse  between  gods  and  men,  and  a  begetting  of  men  by  gods. 
Both  ideas  are  derived  from  the  Greek  mythology ;  and  it  was 
doubtless  Ennius,  who  had  received  a  Greek  education,  who  first 
invented  the  apotheosis  of  Romulus  in  such  a  form,  and  domesticated 
the  idea  among  the  Romans." 

To  the  same  effect  Mommsen :  *  "  The  Greek  hero-worship  is 
entirely  foreign  to  the  Romans ;  and  how  recently  and  clumsily  the 
Romulus  legend  was  invented,  is  shown  by  his  quite  un-Roman 
metamorphosis  into  Quirinus.  ]S"uma,  the  oldest  and  most  honoured 
name  in  Roman  tradition,  was  never  worshipped  as  a  god  at  Rome, 
like  Theseus  at  Athens." 

Nobody,  of  course,  believes  in  the  actual  apotheosis  of  Romulus ; 
the  only  question  is,  whether  such  a  belief  was  congenial  to,  and 
might  have  prevailed  in,  the  times  in  which  Romulus  lived  ? 

The  very  argument  wliich  Dr.  Mommsen  uses  against  the  story 
proves  that  it  could  not  have  been  a  late  invention,  as  a  very  Httle 
reflection  might  have  shown  him.     l^o  inventor  of  a  story  invents 


'..1? 


1 


.%^ 


1  Buch  X.  §  10. 
3  De  fort.  Rom.  o. 


*  Lib.  ii.  c.  56. 

*  Kap.  12,  p.  113. 


one  that  runs  counter  to  the  manners  of  the  people  among  whom 
he  lives.  For,  first  of  all,  such  an  invention  would  not  occur  to 
him;  there  would  be  nothing  to  suggest  it.  Again,  an  inventor 
naturally  wishes  his  story  to  be  believed ;  but  how  should  it  gain 
credit  if  it  was  totally  foreign  to  the  customs  of  the  people  whom 
he  wishes  to  believe  it?  These  reflections  show  that  the  story 
must  have  been  the  product  of  the  age  of  Romulus,  who  with  many 
of  his  followers  was  of  Greek  descent. 

In  the  very  same  page  in  which  Dr.  Mommsen  makes  this  objec- 
tion to  the  legend,  he  mentions,  without  a  word  of  comment,  the 
worship  of  Hercules  by  the  Romans,  as  a  w^ell-attested  part  of  the 
Roman  religion.  But  who  was  Hercules  but  a  deified  man  ?  And 
what  was  his  worship  but  hero-worship?  This  worship,  as  we 
liave  seen,  had  been  instituted  by  Romulus,  and  is  another  proof 
of  his  Greek  extraction. 

The  argument  that  Xuma  was  never  worshipped  by  the  Romans 
is  a  strange  one  in  the  mouth  of  Dr.  Mommsen,  who  does  not 
believe  in  his  existence.  But  the  difference  is  easily  accounted  for. 
Romulus  was  a  semi-Greek,  Xuma  a  pure  Sabine.  The  followers 
of  Romulus,  especially  the  Ramnes,  for  whom  probably  his  deifica- 
tion was  principally  intended,  might  readily  believe  it.  Not  so  the 
Sabines  of  their  king.  And  during  the  reign  of  Xuma,  Rome 
became  thoroughly  Sahinized, 

The  tradition,  therefore,  instead  of  being  a  late  and  cliunsy  in- 
vention, bears  on  its  face  the  evidence  that  it  was  not  invented  at 
all ;  though  of  course  the  apotheosis  itself  was  invented  by  those 
who  had  a  purpose  to  serve.  The  tradition  was  handed  down  from 
that  early  period  when  alone  hero-worship  was  practised,  and  coidd 
not  have  been  invented  at  a  long  subsequent  period,  when  it  was 
not  practised. 

The  same  answer  which  we  have  given  to  the  objections  of  Dr. 
Mommsen  applies  to  those  of  Schwegler.  The  latter  writer,  though 
he  adduces  the  story  of  Hercules  from  the  Greek  mythology,  as 
suggesting  to  Roman  inventors  the  apotheosis  of  Romulus,  forgets 
that  Hercules  had  been  early  naturalized  at  Rome.  The  Ara 
Maxima  dedicated  to  him  was  undoubtedly  one  of  the  oldest  fanes 
in  the  city.  It  required,  therefore,  no  Ennius  to  introduce  among 
the  Romans  the  idea  of  apotheosis.  And  it  is  incredible  that  any 
poet  should  have  been  able  to  establish  such  an  article  of  popular 
belief  among  them,  especially  if  it  was  quite  contrary  to  their  way 


m 


lOG 


HISTORY  OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


APOTHEOSIS   OF   ROMULUS. 


107 


of  thinking.  But,  in  fact,  that  the  deification  of  llomulus  was 
known  among  the  Eojuans  long  before  the  time  of  Emiius  appears 
from  the  circumstance  that  the  temple  dedicated  to  him  is  mentioned 
in  the  sacred  Argive  books  :  *'  dictos  enim  collis  plureis  apparet  ex 
Argeorum  sacrificiis,  in  quibus  scriptum  sic  est : 

"  *  Collis  Quirinalis,  terticeps  cis  ajJem  Quirini.'  "^ 

Schwegler  himself  recognises  the  high  antiquity  of  the  division 
of  the  city,  according  to  these  books ;  ^  divisions  wliich  must  of 
course  have  preceded  those  of  Servius. 

We  are  of  opinion,  however,  that  though  the  belief  in  the 
apotheosis  of  Romulus  originated  at  the  time  of  his  death,  yet  that 
the  story  of  Julius  Proculiis,  or  at  least  his  prediction,  is  a  more 
modern  addition.  The  prophecy  that  nothing  could  resist  the 
Roman  arms,  and  that  Rome  was  to  be  the  leading  city  of  the 
world,  is  evidently  a  vatlclniiun  ex  eventu,  which  must  have  been 
invented,  at  all  events,  after  Rome  had  made  considerable  progress 
in  the  conquest  of  Italy,  and  was  perhaps  inserted  by  Livy  himself, 
as  a  rhetorical  flourish  and  ad  ccq^tandum  vulgus.  During  the  reign 
of  Romulus  there  was  nothing  to  suggest  or  to  justify  such  a  pre- 
diction. There  is  nothing  of  the  sort  in  the  tradition  as  given  by 
Cicero ;  according  to  whom,  Romulus  appeared  to  Proculus  Julius, 
on  the  Quirinal  Hill,  and  merely  requested  that  a  temple  might 
there  be  built  to  him  ;  for  that  he  was  now  a  god  and  called 
Quirinus.3 

That  a  simple  and  primitive  people  like  the  early  Romans  should 
have  believed  in  the  deification  of  Romulus  is  nothing  surprising. 
Many  centuries  afterwards,  amidst  all  the  enlightenment  of  the  im- 
perial times,  Julius  Ciesar  was,  like  his  successors,  translated  among 
the  gods,  not  only,  says  Suetonius,  by  the  mouths  of  those  who 
decreed  him  that  honour,  but  also  in  the  belief  of  the  vulgar.-^ 

The  descent  of  Romulus  from  a  god,  his  own  apotheosis,  the 
colloquies  of  Xuma  with  Egeria,  and  other  supernatural  events  of 
this  description,  are  eagerly  seized  upon  by  the  sceptical  critics  as 

^  Varr.  L.  L.  v.  52.  The  same  books  also  mention  an  .EJes  Romuli  on  the 
Germalus  (ib.  §  54) ;  but  it  is  possible  this  may  have  been  the  same  as  the 
Casa  Romuli. 

2  B.  i.  S.  380,  Anm.  14. 

a  De  Rep.  ii.  10,  20.     So  also  Dionysius,  lib.  ii.  c.  63. 

**  "In  deorum  numerum  relatus  est,  uou  ore  modo  decenieutium  sud  et 
persuasione  vulgi."— Jul.  Cses.  c.  ^d>. 


V, : 


^-. '. 


•'4 

•1st 


V* 


proofs  of  the  falsehood  of  early  Roman  history.  But  in  fact  such 
objections  only  prove  the  thorough  misconception  of  these  critics  of 
ancient  character  and  manners,  and  especially  of  the  ancient  notion 
of  deity.  On  this  point  we  will  transcribe  the  words  of  an  eminent 
German  scholar  :  "  Notwithstanding  that  the  use  and  meaning  of 
the  word  deus  is  sufficiently  known,  yet  we  do  not  think  it  super- 
fluous to  remind  our  readers  that  when  they  are  thinking  of  the 
Latin  deuSy  they  must  quite  throw  aside  the  notion  of  the  German 
word  Gott  (or  the  English  word  God).  For  it  would  lead  us  to 
very  false  ideas  of  the  religious  views  of  the  ancients,  if,  for 
instance,  we  should  regard  the  deification  of  Roman  emperors 
according  to  our  notions  of  a  divine  being.  A  deus  is  far  from 
being  so  much  as  a  saint ;  since  every  person^s  soul,  after  quitting 
the  body,  and  after  the  performance  of  ceremonies  like  those 
emjjloyed  in  the  apotheosis  of  an  emperor,  became  a  deus.  The 
invisible  guide  assigned  to  every  man  by  heaven,  was  called  deus  ; 
a  word  which  denoted  not  only  a  good,  but  also  a  wicked  being. 
According  to  this  view,  the  word  deus  denoted  in  general  only  an 
invisible,  or  spiritual,  personality.  These  spiritual  beings  were  as 
numerous  as  the  corporeal  appearances  which  presented  themselves 
to  the  senses  ;  since  not  only  every  man,  but  also  every  plant,  every 
place,  nay,  every  property  of  these  creatures  and  objects,  had,  in 
the  belief  of  antiquity,  their  spiritual  counterparts."  ^ 

According  to  this  view,  it  woidd  be  as  rational  to  doubt  the 
existence  of  St.  Augustine,  St.  Jerome,  or  any  other  saint  in  the 
Roman  calendar,  because  they  have  been  placed  among  the  heavenly 
choir,  as  to  doubt  the  existence  of  liomulus  because  he  had  been 
deified.  And  if  that  king  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  mytliical  personage, 
on  account  of  his  apotheosis,  so  also  must  Julius  Caisar  and  the 
succeeding  emperors,  though  their  reality  is  amongst  the  best 
attested  facts  of  history.  It  is  true  that  we  find  no  deifications 
during  the  republic  ;  but  this  happened  partly  because,  after  the 
Sabine  mixture,  superstition  ran  less  that  way,  and  partly  because 
it  was  difficult  to  find  anybody  to  deify  in  that  period  of  equality. 
But  no  sooner  had  the  empire,  or  the  rule  of  a  single  person,  been 
re-established,  than  the  practice  was  immediately  revived.  For  the 
Caesars,  like  Romulus,  claimed  a  divine  origin,  through  Venus  and 
iEneas.  There  were,  perhaps,  fewer  persons  in  that  period  who 
believed  in  the  deification.     The  higher  classes,  at  all  events,  had 

^  ITnrtnng,   Rcli^r^ion  dcr  R«"tnior,  !».  i.  S.  %\. 


108 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROxME. 


CONCERNING   KING   TATIUS. 


109 


grown  more  sceptical  and  rationalistic ;  but  the  mass  of  the  people 
were  still  not  much  advanced  above  the  superstition  which  pre- 
vailed under  the  kings. 

We  Avill  now  proceed  to  examine  the  remaining  occurrences  of 
the  reign  of  Romulus. 

Although  Tatius,  it  is  said/  can  as  little  pass  for  an  historical 
personage  as  Romulus— for  he  is  the  hero  eponymous  of  the  Titles, 
as  Romulus  is  of  the  Romans — yet  there  seems  to  be  some  historical 
ground  for  the  double  kingdom  which  the  legend  offers  as  the  oldest 
constitution  of  the  federated  state.  It  is  quite  possible  that  a  con- 
temporary reign  of  a  king  from  both  races  may  have  preceded  the 
alternate  rule  of  Roman  and  Sabine  kings.  The  tradition  pre- 
served by  Servius  of  the  double  Romulean  throne,  with  a  sceptre 
and  crown,  which  were  always  placed  near  Romulus  when  he  was 
giving  his  sanction  to  anything,  seem  to  point  this  way,  though 
others  refer  them,  not  to  Romulus  and  Tatius,  but  to  Romulus  and 
Remus.  2 

Can  anything  be  more  perverse  than  reasoning  like  this  ?  It  is 
quite  possible  that  there  may  have  been  a  reign  of  w^hich  tradition 
says  nothing,  like  that  of  Romulus  and  Tatius,  only  it  could  not 
be  tJte  reign  of  those  monarchs,  of  which  tradition  tells  something  ! 
Surely  such  arguments  are  begot  in  the  very  spirit  of  contradiction. 

The  facts  are  admitted,  but  the  persons  to  whom  they  refer  are 
rejected  as  unhistoricaL  Why  ?  We  have  already  examined  this 
question  in  the  case  of  Romulus.  The  reason  for  rejecting  Tatius 
is,  that  he  is  the  eponymous  hero  of  the  Titles.  :N'ow,  if  there 
was  otherwise  any  weight  in  such  an  argument,  let  us  observe  that 
the  parallel  does  not  hold.  The  Romans  were  a  nation,  the  Titles 
only  a  city  tribe,  and  wanted  no  eponymous  hero ;  though  it  was 
natural  enough  that  its  name  should  have  been  taken  from  Tatius. 
But  if  that  king  had  been  an  eponymous  hero  at  all,  it  would 
surely  have  been  of  the  Sabines,  or  Quirites,  as  a  nation. 

Let  us  observe  that  the  body  of  Tatius  was  brought  to  Rome 
and  buried  in  a  magnificent  tomb  on  the  Aventine,^  where  public 

»  Schwegler,  B.  x.  §  5. 

^  "  Ob  quam  rem  sella  cuiulis  ciun  sceptra  et  corona  et  ceteris  regni  insignibus 
semper  jiixta  sancientem  aliquid  Romulum  ponebatur,  ut  pariter  imperaro 
viderentur."«Serv.  yEn.  i.  276 ;  conf.  id.  vi.  780.  But  Servius  also  in  these 
places  refers  the  double  insignia  to  Romulus  and  Remus. 

^  "  In  eo  ( Aventino)  Lauretum,  ab  eo  quod  ibi  sepultus  est  Tatius  rex,  qui  ab 
Laurentibus  interfectus  est,  vel  ab  silva  laurea. "- Varr.  L.  L.  v .  §  152.  ddirr^ra,. 


if'. 


•I' 


m 


libations  still  continued  to  be  made  to  his  manes,  at  least  down  to 
the  time  of  the  empire  ;  since  Dionysius  of  Ilalicarnassus  tells  us 
that  the  practice  existed  in  his  time. 

Here,  then,  we  have  evidence,  not  only  of  the  existence  of  Tatius, 
but  also  collaterally  of  his  having  perished  in  the  way  tradition 
tells  us.  For  it  can  hardly  be  believed  that  the  Romans  were  so 
besotted  as  to  make  these  libations  for  centuries  to  an  imaginary 
king,  or  to  have  made  them  at  all,  except  to  expiate  his  untimely 
death,  which  Romulus  had  left  unavenged.  For  this  neglect 
having  been  punished  by  a  devastating  pestilence,  Romulus  took 
this  method  of  appeasing  the  anger  of  the  gods.i 

The  performance  of  these  annual  rites  must  have  been  handed 
down  from  the  regal  period  ;  for  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  that 
they  should  have  been  established  during  the  republic  in  favour  of 
a  king,  and  by  no  means  a  popular  one. 

Be  it  remarked  that  the  testimony  of  Dionysius  on  this  subject 
is  only  incidental.  He  had  no  point  to  prove,  no  theory  to  make 
out,  for  in  his  time  nobody  doubted  the  existence  of  Tatius.  His 
merely  accidental  notice  of  the  matter  is,  on  that  account,  all  the 
more  valuable. 

Schwegler  rightly  observes  that  when  Plutarch,  in  the  passage 
just  quoted,  connects  these  rites  to  Tatius  with  those  performed 
at  the  grove  of  Ferentina,  on  the  occasion  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Diet,  or  Confederate  Council  of  Latium,  this  explanation  is  no 
doubt  quite  groundless.  There  appears  not  to  have  been  the 
slightest  connexion  between  Rome  and  Latium,  as  a  confederate 
state,  during  the  reigns  of  the  first  two  kings  of  Rome.  The  text 
of  Plutarch  is  doubtless  corrupt.  It  runs  thus  in  the  vulgate  :  kol 
KaQapfxoi's  o  Pw^uXos  rjyvLue  rag  TroXftc,  ovg  eri  vvv  KTropovaiy  em  tPjq 
<P(p£i'TLVTjQ  TTuXr^s  avi^Te\i7(rdai.  There  was  no  Porta  Ferentina  at 
Rome;  wherefore  Becker ^  would  adopt  either  the  emendation  of 
Doujatius,  vXi]<s  for  irvA.i??,  or  that  of  Cluver,  Trrjyijs  ;  so  that  the  ex- 
piatory rites  were  performed  either  at  the  grove  or  the  fountain  of 
Ferentina,  which  are  both  frequently  mentioned.  But  this  removes 
the  scene  of  them  entirely  from  Rome  and  the  Aventine  ;  where 
we  know,  from  the  passages  of  Varro  and  Dionysius  just  quoted, 
that  Tatius  was  buried,  and  that  such  rites  were  performed.     The 

5e  €ts  'Pci/xrjv  KOfucrOels  ivrifKf)  Ta<pp,  Kot.  x^ois  avr^  Ka6'  €Ka<nov  Iviaxnbv  7j  ttc^Ais 
cTTiTeAc?  h-qixSa-ias. — Dioiiys.  lib.  ii.  c.  52. 

1  riut.  Rom.  24.  2  R(3m.  Altertli.  B.  i.  S.  177. 


4 


110 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   LOME. 


cities  allucled  to  by  riutarcli  are  only  Rome  and  Laurentum,  wliich, 
as  we  have  said,  had  then  nothing  to  do  with  the  grove  of  Feren- 
tina.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  Plutarch  requires  still  further 
emendation.  Xor  need  we  scruple  to  apply  it.  Either  through  his 
ovm  ignorance,  or  the  blunders  of  his  transcribers,  he  makes  sad 
havoc  with  Roman  topography ;  witness  his  discovering  a  spot  on 
the  Palatine  called  uaX/)  a'/cr//,  or  Pulcruni  Littus,  which  nobody 
ever  heard  of  elsewhere,  and  which  is  evidently  a  mistake  for  Scala? 
Caci.  We  should  read,  in-l  rrjg  Aavpevrlrrig  vXrjg,  at  the  Lauretum, 
or  the  Laurentine  grove  on  the  Aventine.  It  is  possible  that  the 
grove  may  have  derived  its  name  from  Tatius,  and  his  connexion 
with  Laurentum,  rather  than  from  its  consisting  of  laurel-trees. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  examine  Schwegler's  conjectures 
respecting  a  symbolical  meaning  in  the  whole  history  of  this  affair ; 
that  Tatius's  violation  of  the  law  of  nations  towards  Laurentum  and 
Lavinium,  towns  which  contained  the  Latian  Lares,  and  the  ven- 
geance which  the  liauren tines  took  upon  him,  typify  bloody  con- 
flicts which  had  taken  place  between  the  Sabine  and  Latin  races. 
It  is  wonderful  what  hidden  meanings  these  aesthetical  critics  dis- 
cover in  the  commonest  occurrences,  and  how  they  overlook  the 
most  obvious  things  that  stare  them  in  the  face.  JS'or  need  we  go 
into  the  fanciful  resemblance  between  Tatius  and  Remus.  All 
these  things  have  no  connexion  with  the  credibility  of  the  early 
Roman  history. 

In  a  similarly  ingenious  manner  Schwegler  goes  on  to  suppose,^ 
after  Buttmann,  that  in  the  first  two  kings  of  Rome  the  myth  has 
personified  the  two  fundamental,  though  at  first  sight  disparate, 
elements  of  Roman  existence — the  warlike  spirit  of  the  nation,  and 
its  deisidcemonia — or,  if  we  may  be  allowed  to  borrow  a  word  from 
the  Latin,  its  religiosity.  "  Hence  the  first  king,  who  founded  the 
Roman  state  by  force  of  arms,  must  have  inspired  it  with  the  lust 
of  conquest,  the  ambition  of  military  superiority  ;  whilst  the  second 
regenerated  it,  and  founded  it  anew  by  religion  and  morals.  Thus 
warlike  activity  is  the  central  point  of  the  acts  of  Romulus,  and  an 
exhortation  to  a  zealous  exercise  of  the  military  art  is  the  last 
word  which  he  addresses  to  the  Romans,  as  if  it  were  his  political 
testament."  ^ 

We  have  already  intimated  our  opinion  that  the  warlike  character 

1  Biich  X.  §  6  ;  cf.  Buttmann,  Mytliol.  ii.  85. 
2  Schwegler,  B.  1.  S.  524. 


POLITICAL   CHARACTER   OF   ROMULUS. 


Ill 


of  Romulus  has  been  much  exaggerated.  All  his  wars  are  defensive, 
and  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  the  new  state ;  he  undertakes 
none  from  the  Inst  of  conquest,  and  therefore  could  not  liave  in- 
spired his  subjects  with  it;  and  this  is  shown  by  the  extraordinarily 
long  peace  which  followed  his  reign.  His  military  character  arises 
from  the  bravery  and  skill  which  lie  displays  in  the  wars  that  are 
forced  upon  him,  and  more  particularly,  perhaps,  from  his  being  re- 
puted the  son  of  Mars.  His  last  years  are  spent  in  almost  ignoble 
peace  ;  and  this  very  circumstance  is  seized  by  the  a;sthotical  critics 
as  an  objection  against  the  length  of  his  reign.  His  "political 
testament,"  as  Schwegler  calls  it,  is  evidently  the  figment  of  a  later 
age,  found  only  in  Livy,  as  we  have  already  intimated.  According 
to  Cicero,  in  a  passage  to  which  we  have  before  alluded,  the  two 
grand  characteristics  of  Romulus's  reign  were  religious  and  civil — 
the  Auspices  and  the  Senate — and  it  is  to  these,  and  not  to  his  wars, 
that  Cicero  ascribes  his  apotheosis."^  In  fact,  Romulus,  as  the  first 
king,  was  necessarily  the  founder  of  all  the  institutions  of  the  state, 
political,  civil,2  religious,  and  military,  and,  therefore,  it  is  prepos- 
terous to  contrast  him  with  Numa,  and  to  maintain  that  both  had 
a  peculiar  and  separate  mission.  Such  a  contrast  is  drawn  merel}^ 
with  the  view  of  colouring  the  assertion  that  both  kings  are  the 
creatures  of  invention. 

Besides  the  political  institutions  of  the  senate,  the  patricians,  and 
the  curiae,  Romulus  also  founded  the  Equites,  or  knights,  at  first 
300  in  number;  that  is,  100  from  each  tribe,  or  ten  from  each 
curia.  P>esides  these,  Ja\j  mentions,^  as  a  distinct  body,  300 
Celeres,  which  formed  the  king's  body-guard.  Put  the  Celeres 
appear,  in  fact,  to  have  been  the  same  as  the  Equites.  They  are 
only  two  difi'erent  names  for  the  same  class,  Celeres  being  the  Greek, 
or  Romulean,  name,  afterwards  superseded  by  Equites.  And  per- 
haps it  was  this  double  name  which  led  some  authors  to  think  that 
they  were  different  bodies  ;  but  Pliny  acquaints  us  with  their 
identity."*     The  name  Celer  seems  to  be  derived  from  k-cXXw,  to  run, 

^  "  Ac  Romulus,  quum  sopteni  et  triginta  regna\'isset  annos,  et  lifec  egregia 
duo  firmamenta  rei  publicse  peperisset,  auspicia  et  senatum,  tantum  est  con- 
.secutus,  ut,  quum  subito  sole  obscurato  non  comparuisset,  deorum  in  numero 
collocatus  putaretur."— De  Rep.  ii.  10. 

^  So  Livy  :  "jura  dcdit,"  lib.  i.  c.  8. 

8  Lib.  i.  c.  15. 

*  "Celeres  sub  Romulo  rogibusque  appellati  sunt  (equites)."— N.  II.  lib. 
xxxiii.  2,  seqq. 


112 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  HOME. 


WARS   OF   ROMULUS. 


113 


K€\r)£j  a  runner,  or  race-liorse,  in  the  -^olic  dialect  KeXqp.  Celsus 
is  the  same  as  Celer,  and,  therefore,  also  identical  with  Uques.^ 
This  may  serve  to  explain  the  Hne  in  Horace: 

"Celsi  praetereunt  austera  poemata  Ramnes.**a 

Here  the  word  Celsi  is  commonly  taken  for  an  adjective,  and  com- 
mentators have  racked  their  brains  to  explain  it  by  supposed 
equivalent  epithets,  such  as  elati,  fastidiost,  sublimes^  &c.  But 
Celsi  Ramnes  means  the  Eoman,  or  rather  the  Eamnian,  knights^ 
the  true  old  Romulean  stock ;  for  Ramnes  by  itself  could  not  mean 
liiights.  Eamnes,  or  Eamnenses, — for  both  forms,  in  the  same 
way  as  Tities  and  Titienses,  are  used  indifferently,^ — is,  like  other 
ethnic  nouns,  an  adjective,  and  here  stands  for  Romania  but  with 
the  stronger  meaning  of  original  or  genuine  Eomans.  It  should  be 
observed  that  the  Tribunus  Celerum  was  the  next  person  in  power 
and  dignity  to  the  king,  and  in  his  absence  had  the  pri\dlege  of 
assembling  the  Comitia. 

The  wars  of  Eomulus,  it  is  said,*  are  a  poor  invention,  and,  like 
many  other  pretended  events  of  the  regal  period,  are  borrowed  from 
occurrences  of  the  historical  times.  In  support  of  this  assertion,  it 
is  affirmed  that  Eomulus's  campaign  against  Fidense  is  a  manifest 
copy  of  that  of  the  year  328. 

It  is  not  our  intention  to  affirm  that  the  wars  of  Eomulus  are 
literally  true,  and  that  all  the  events  of  them  occurred  exactly  as 
they  are  described.  Allowance  must  be  made  for  so  high  an  anti- 
quity, and  for  the  circumstance  that  for  the  greater  part,  perhaps^ 
of  the  first  century  of  Eome,  its  history  rested  on  oral  tradition. 
But  we  do  not  think  that  they  are  inventions.  They  are  rather 
meagre  and  fragmentary  accounts  of  wars  that  really  occurred ; 
which,  through  the  original  want,  or  subsequent  loss,  of  details^ 
have  an  unconnected,  desultory,  and  unhistorical  appearance.  The 
affirmation  that  the  campaign  against  Fidenae  is  a  copy  of  that  of 
328,  is  quite  unfounded,  as  anybody  may  see  who  will  take  the 
trouble  to  compare  them.^  The  only  resemblance  is  that  in  both 
the  Eomans  rush  into  the  town  with  the  flying  enemy ;  an  event 

^  Paul.  Diac.  p.  55.  **Celsus  a  Grseco  xeAAeti/ dictus."  "Celsi  in  genere 
diciintur  omnes  eqiiitantes.  .  .  .  Sed  propria  quadam  ratione  sic  dicuntur 
equilcs  Ramani"  .  .  ^^  Celeres  und  celsi,  dUe  Ritter,  K4\7]Tes." — Doed.  Etym. 
p.  32  ;  Keen,  ad  Greg.  Dial.  p.  140,  seqq.  ;  Serv.  -^u.  xi.  603. 

*  Ars.  Poet.  342.  3  See  Varr.  L.  L.  v.  55. 

*  Schwegler,  Buch  x.  §  9.  5  Liv.  i.  14  ;  iv.  31,  seqq. 


which  in  the  mode  of  ancient  warfare  may  very  easily  have 
occurred,  not  only  twice,  but  many  times.  All  the  other  events  of 
the  campaign,  including  the  ambush,  are  quite  different.  Had  the 
incident  of  the  torches  been  repeated,  there  might  have  been  good 
grounds  for  assuming  imitation.  That  there  should  have  been 
many  wars  with  Fidena3,  and  that  Yeii,  its  neighbour,  should  have 
often  combined  with  it  against  Eome,  is  nothing  extraordinary  ; 
but  it  would  have  been  truly  wonderful  if  Eome  had  quelled  two 
cities  as  strong,  or  stronger,  than  herself  at  one  stroke.  The 
hundred  years'  truce  with  Veii  is,  it  is  said,  a  random  invention  ; 
but  as  the  termination  of  it  falls  in  the  times  of  record,  this  is 
some  guarantee  for  its  truth  ;  not  to  mention  the  account  of  Diony- 
sius,  that  it  was  engraved  upon  a  column.  That  author  may  be 
trusted  as  a  witness  to  anything  that  fell  under  his  own  knowledge 
and  eyesight ;  but  he  does  not  affirm  that  he  saw  this  column. 
In  other  respects,  he  has  incalculably  damaged  Eoman  history  by 
his  absurd  accounts.  And  if  he  contradicts  himself  by  asserting  in 
one  place  that  the  Veientines  ceded  the  salt-works  to  Eomulus, 
while  in  another  he  represents  the  whole  right  bank  of  the  Tiber 
as  in  the  possession  of  the  Etruscans  long  after,^  that  is  no  objection 
against  Eoman  history,  but  only  against  the  historian,  Dionysius. 
Livy,  as  we  shall  see,  represents  the  salt-works  as  first  acquired  by 
Ancus  Marcius. 

Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  object  the  improbability  that  only 
these  two  short  campaigns  against  Fidense  and  Veii  should  have 
filled  up  the  reign  of  so  warHke  a  prince  as  Eomulus,  after  the 
death  of  Tatius.  But  as  we  have  already  touched  upon  this  point, 
we  shall  not  again  enter  into  it,  and  shall  content  ourselves  with 
observing :  first,  that  we  do  not  know  the  date  of  the  Sabine  union, 
nor  of  the  death  of  Tatius,  nor  consequently  the  length  of  Eomulus's 
reign  afterwards  ;  and  secondly,  that  all  Eomulus's  campaigns  are 
probably  curtailed  of  their  just  proportions  ;  for  tradition  fixes  only 
on  the  more  striking  incidents  and  the  results,  and  easily  suffers  the 
more  ordinary  details,  as  well  as  dates,  to  sink  into  oblivion. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  how  Eomulus  came  to  be  identified  with 
Quirinus.  According  to  a  passage  in  Varro,^  the  Sabine  god,  Quirinus, 
was  worshipped  before  the  death  of  Eomulus,  since  Tatius  erected 
an  altar  to  him.  It  is  probable  that  he  was  not  so  identified  before 
the  time  of  Numa,  whose  care  it  was,  as  we  shall  have  to  show,  to 


^  See  lib.  ii.  c.  55 ;  lib.  iii.  c.  45. 


2  Ling.  Lat.  v.  §  74. 


lU 


HISTORY    OF   THE   KINGS   OF   HOME. 


amalgamate  as  mucli  as  possible  the  Sabines  and  the  Eomans,  ami 
to  remove  all  dilferenccs  of  creed  and  manners.     But  it  is  no  objec- 
tion to  the  general  truth  of  early  llomau  history  that  we  are  unable 
to  explain  the  origin  of  every  early  religious  observance  among 
that  primitive  and  superstitious  people.     The  same  remark  applies 
to  the  festival  of  the  Popnlifugia,  the  Caprotine  Nones,  &c.     There 
is  nothing  singular,  however,  in  the  circumstance  that  the  two 
festivals  Just  named  should  have  fallen  on  the  same   day,  since 
Romulus  may  have  purposely  chosen  a  holiday  to  review  his  army 
at  the  Palus  Caprecc.     Xor  shall  we  inquire  into  the  nature  of  the 
Caprotine  festival,  or  whether  it  resembled  the  Lupercalia.     No 
conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  discussion  of  such  points,  though 
they  admit  of  many  fanciful  interpretations,  with  which  the  German 
critics  abound.     Eut  when   Schwegler  says,^   that  it  would  have 
appeared  much  more  natural  if  the  disappearance  of  Romulus  had 
been  assigned  to  the  Quirinalia,  on  the  17th  of  February,  instead 
of  the  Xones  of  Quinctilis,  or  July,  we  see  at  once  that  the  old 
tradition  is  much  more  consistent  than  the  modern  critic,  since  in 
the  time  of  Romulus  there  was  no  month  of  February.  ^  Had  the 
story  been  a  modern  invention^  the  occurrence  in  question  would 
probably  have  been  placed  on  the  Quirinalia,  which,  as  Schwegler 
observes,   would  have   looked   '^  more  natural;"   but  the  way  in 
which  it  stands  is  more  consistent  with  the  genuine  antiquity  of 

the  tradition. 

Schwegler  proceeds  to  argue  that  the  connexion  of  Rumus,  or 
Romulus^with  the  ft-stivals  of  the  Lupercalia  and  Caprotine  Nones, 
shows  that  he  was  an  ancient  and  obsolete  being  of  the  Roman 
religion,  that  can  only  be  dimly  recognised  from  certain  ancient 
sacred  ceremonies.  But  we  must  leave  him  and  his  followers  to 
reconcile  this  with  his  other  theory,  that  Romulus  is  the  eponymous 
hero  of  Rome,  from  which  his  name  is  derived.  One  or  the  other 
of  these  theories  proves  too  much. 

Schwegler  is  further  "convinced"  that  the  story  of  Romulus 
having  been  torn  to  pie^jes  by  the  senators,  also  arises  from  some 
obsolete  or  misunderstood  religious  worship.  But  as  his  only 
ground  of  ''conviction"  is  that  Orpheus  and  Pentheus  were  also 
torn  to  pieces,   we  shall  peril  qjs  be  excused   from  laying   much 

w^eight  on  it. 

We  ourselves  think  that  the  tearing  to  pieces  is  very  problema- 

1  B.  i.  S.  534,  Anm.  21. 


THE   MURDER   OF   ROMULUS. 


11, 


tical ;  though  it  is  likely  enough  that  Romulus  may  have  met  with 
a  violent  death,  and  that  the  lacerating  part  of  the  story  is  one  of 
those  popular  exaggerations  which  so  readily  attach  tliemselves  to 
any  remarkable  occurrence.  On  this  point  Schwegler  is  more 
historically  critical.^  "  Of  course  it  was  necessary,"  he  observes,  "  to 
assign  a  motive  for  so  horrible  an  outbreak  of  the  deepest  and 
bitterest  hatred,  as  that  murderous  attack  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Senate.  Hence,  it  was  invented  (r/edichtet),  that  the  rule  of 
Romulus  became  at  last  despotic  and  oppressive,  that  by  insuffer- 
able pride  and  hateful  ostentation  he  alienated  all  hearts  from 
him  ;  indecently  slighted  the  Senate,  consulting  it  only  for  the  sake 
of  appearance,  and  often  not  at  all ;  as,  for  instance,  when  he  divided 
the  conquered  lands  among  his  troops,  by  his  own  supreme  will,  and 
restored  the  Veientine  hostages  against  the  opinion  of  the  Senate  ; 
that  he  treated  the  new  citizens  in  a  contemptuous  and  overbearing 
manner;  administered  justice  arbitrarily,  and  punished  ofTenecs 
cruelly  ;  and  having  made  himself  hateful  by  this  despotic  and 
violent  conduct,  out  of  a  well-grounded  suspicion  surrounded  him- 
self with  a  guard  of  300  men.  All  this,  about  which  the  old  tradi- 
tion knows  nothing,  may  serve  as  a  proof  how  little  the  Roman 
historians  were  at  a  loss  for  causes,  when  they  were  in  want  of 
them  for  iheiv  pragiyiatisrmts.^* 

Exactly  so.  But  who  are  "  the  Roman  historians "  who  ^)r«/7- 
matize  in  this  manner?  They  are  exclusively  Greek — Dionysius, 
Plutarch,  and  their  followers.-  And  so  Roman  history  is  to  suffer 
because  these  rhetoricians  wanted  to  make  a  pretty  book  for  their 
countrymen  ! 

It  is  a  pity  that  Schwegler's  critical  acumen  did  not  lead  him  to 
reject  these  accounts  as  worthless.  But  they  told  against  early 
Roman  history,  and  that  was  enough.  He  inserts  them  in  a  manner 
to  make  the  reader  believe  that  the  faults  of  these  historians  are 
the  faults  of  the  history. 

Yet  he  proceeds  to  give  the  Latin  view  as  follows  :  "  According 
to  the  old  tradition,  which  is  represented  by  Ennius,  the  rule  of 

1  S,  535  f. 

-  The  authorities  quoted  by  Sclnvegler  for  the  above  "inventions,"  are 
riutarch,  Rom.  26,  27,  Num.  2 ;  Dionysius,  ii.  5Q  ;  Zonaras,  vii.  4  ; 
Joann.  Antioch,  Fr.  32  ;  App.  B.  C.  ii.  114;  Dio.  Cass.  Fr.  5,  11.  The  only 
Roman  authority  that  can  be  adduced  for  any  one  of  the  assertions  is  Livy 
for  the  bodv-OTard      P>nt  it  has  been  before  shown  that  Livy  wrongly  distLj.f' 


guishes  the  Celeres  from  tlie  Knights. 


I2 


This  is  also  the  view  of  Schwegler. 


116 


HISTOEY   OF   THE   KIXGS   OF   ROME. 


THE   JULIAN   FAMILY. 


117 


Eomulus  was  just  and  mild  ;  after  his  death  his  people  lamented 
him  as  a  father.^  Even  Cicero  says,  in  complete  contradiction  to 
the  above  views — that  is,  the  views  of  the  Greek  historians — that 
Romulus  continued  throughout  on  a  good  understanding  with  the 
Senate,  and  punished  the  offences  of  his  subjects,  not  cruelly,  but 
with  a  wise  moderation."^ 

The  drift  of  this  passage  is  of  course  to  show  that  Eomulus, 
having  behaved  well  towards  the  Senate,  they  had  no  reason  to  kill 
him,  and  that  consequently  the  story,  or  rather  the  suspicion,  of  his 
having  been  put  to  death  by  them  must  be  totally  unfounded.  Eut 
it  is  quite  possible  that  Eomulus  may  have  behaved  very  handsomely 
to  the  Senate,  and  yet  that  from  the  desire  of  a  revolution  they  mny 
have  put  him  to  death.  Louis  XYI.  behaved  most  kindly  towards 
his  subjects ;  yet  he  ended  his  days  on  the  scaffold  ;  while  Louis 
XY.,  who  really  deserved  that  fate,  died  in  his  bed.  And  when 
we  quote  an  author  to  support  a  view,  we  should  quote  him  fairly, 
and  not  pick  out  passages  that  make  for  it,  and  leave  out  others 
that  make  against  it.  Cicero  says,  a  little  further  on,  that  Proculus 
Julius  told  his  vision  of  Eomulus  at  the  instigation  of  the  Tathers, 
in  order  that  they  might  deliver  themselves  from  the  hatred  of 
having  killed  him — "  impulsu  patrum,  quo  illi  a  se  invidiam  inter itus 
Eomuli  pellerent."  ^  And  the  proof  that  the  Senate  desired  a  revo- 
lution is  the  attempt  to  keep  the  supreme  power  in  their  own 
hands  after  the  death  of  Eomulus  ;  to  which  Cicero  alludes  as  if 
it  were  a  base  and  ungrateful  return  for  his  kindness.^  In  fact, 
the  popularity  of  Eomulus,  as  Livy  says,  lay  with  the  mass  of  the 
people,  and  not  with  the  Senate,  as  we  also  see  by  the  conclusion  of 
the  passage  just  quoted. 

The  connexion  of  Julius  Proculus  with  this  story  is  not  of  much 
historical  importance,  except  so  far  as  relates  to  the  family  of  the 
Csesars.  Schwegler  observes  :  ^  "  The  tradition  represents  the  eleva- 
tion of  Eomulus  to  be  the  god  Quirinus  as  first  revealed  to  Proculus 
Julius,  and  communicated  by  him  to  the  rest  of  the  people.     This 

1  Enn.  Ann.  i.  177  ff. 

2  De  Rep.  ii.  p.  8,  seq.  3  1131^1,  10,  20. 

4  "Ergo  qnum  ille  Romuli  Senatus,  qui  constabat  ex  optimatibus,  quihus 
ipse  rex  tantum  tribuisset,  ut  eos  patres  vellet  noviinari  2y(itricwsque  eonim 
liberos,  tentaret  post  Romuli  excessum,  ut  ipse  gereret  sine  rege  rempublioani, 
populus  id  non  tulit  desiderioque  Romuli  postea  regeni  flagitare  non  destitit." 
—Ibid.  c.  12. 

5  B.  i.  S.  536,  seqq. 


trait  is  not  without  significance.  In  it  is  reflected  that  familiarity 
of  the  Julian  race  with  the  gods,  which  marks  its  prominent  and 
hereditary  character.  It  is  striking,  on  the  other  hand,  that  this 
Julius  Proculus  appears  as  a  Eoman  citizen,  while,  according  to 
the  ruling  tradition,  the  Julii  did  not  come  to  Eome  till  later,  in 
the  reign  of  Tullus  llostilius.  Can  the  former  version  of  the  story 
have  proceeded  from  the  Jidii  themselves,  who  may  have  set  some 
value  on  having  belonged  to  the  original  stock  of  the  Eoman  people, 
and  having  been  settled  at  Eome  from  the  very  beginning  ]  And 
Jiiay  it  conseiiuently  have  happened  that  Livy,  out  of  respect  for 
Augustus,  mentions  the  Tullii,  instead  of  the  Julii,  among  the  Alban 
families  transplanted  to  Eome  by  Tullus  Hostilius  ] " 

AVhat  Schwegler  here  calls  "  the  ruling  tradition  "  is  only  the 
unsupported  assertion  of  Dionysius,i  that  the  Julii  were  trans- 
planted to  Eome  after  the  reduction  of  Alba ;  an  assertion  which 
is  not  only  contradicted  by  Livy,  who  names  the  Tullii  on  that 
occasion  instead  of  the  Julii ; '-  but  also,  what  is  not  unusual,  by 
Dionysius  himself,  who,  in  the  passage  where  he  relates  the  appari- 
tion of  Eomulus,  mentions  that  the  person  to  whom  he  appeared 
was  named  Julius,  and,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  mistake 
about  the  identity,  adds  that  he  was  a  descendant  of  Ascanius  !  ^ 
Such  is  the  worth  of  this  Greek  authority.  Xor  can  any  inference 
on  the  subject  be  drawn  from  Tacitus,"*  who,  though  he  mentions 
the  Julii  as  coming  from  Alba,  does  not  say  at  Avhat  time.  Eut 
Schwegler's  question,  whether  the  former  version  may  not  have 
been  invented  by  the  Julii  themselves,  is  answered  by  Cicero,'  who, 
like  Livy  and  Dionysius,  mentions  Julius  Proculus  as  the  person 
to  whom  Eomulus  appeared.  Xow  Cicero  assuredly  did  not  invent 
the  story  to  flatter  Julius  Ccesar ;  but  must  have  taken  it  from 
some  old  fftinalist,  as  innocent  of  that  intention  as  himself.  And 
the  same  fact  will  exculpate  Livy  from  an  insinuated  forgery. 

AYe  will  now  proceed  to  examine  some  objections  brought  by  the 
late  Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis  against  the  history  of  Eomulus.  <5  They 
are  urged  with  more  force  than  by  the  German  writers,  and  are  not 
disfigured  and  weakened  by  attempts  to  explain  away  flicts  by 

1  Lib.  iii.  29.  2  lj^,  i  20. 

^  Tlap^xedv  Tis  us  T-^v  dyop^v  'lovKios  6uoixa,    rwy  dir'  'AcTKaviou.— Lib.  iL 
c.  63. 

'  Ann.  xi.  24.  5  Rep.  ii.  10,  24. 

«  See  Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  i.  chap.  xi.  §  9. 


\^ 


118 


HISTOIIY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  liOME. 


finding  for  them  supposed  resemblances  in  the  Greek  mythology. 
!N'eyertheless  we  think  they  are  equally  inconclusive. 

The  narrative,  observes  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  "  does  not  profess  to  be 
derived  from  historians  who  were  either  contemporary,  or  wlio 
lived  near  the  time ;  nor  are  any  of  its  main  facts  supported  by 
contemporary  documents  or  inscriptions.  It  is  totally  devoid  of  all 
credible  external  attestation.  On  examining  the  texture  of  the 
history,  Ave  find  that  it  is,  with  few  exceptions,  a  mosaic,  or  patch- 
work, of  explanatory  legends,  pieced  together,  and  thrown  into  a 
narrative  form.  These  legends  are  partly  political  and  institutional ; 
partly  monumental  and  local ;  partly  religious  and  ritual." 

The  question  of  contemporary  historians  we  have  discussed  in 
the  Introduction,  where  we  have  endeavoured  to  show  that, 
though  there  were  no  literary  liistorians  at  Eome,  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  term,  till  about  two  centuries  B.C.,  yet  that  the  Annales 
Maximi  and  the  Commentarii  Pontificum  supplied  their  place; 
that  the  books  of  the  latter  began  at  least  as  early  as  the  reign  of 
Tullus  Hostilius ;  that  they  were  retrospective,  and  contained  an 
account  of  the  city  from  its  foundation.  Thus  the  reign  of  Eomulus 
may  possibly  have  rested  on  tradition  for  not  more  than  about 
half  a  century. 

It  does  not  follow  that  the  history  was-  not,  at  one  time,  supported 
by  contemporary  documents  or  inscriptions,  because  we  cannot  point 
to  them  noiv.  This  arises  from  the  ancient  method  of  writing 
history.  The  ancients  did  not,  like  most  modern  historians,  cite 
their  authorities  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  as  vouchers  of  the  truth 
of  their  information,  or  at  all  events  of  the  source  whence  they 
derived  it ;  though  they  now  and  then  allude  to  them  in  the  body 
of  the  work.  On  the  same  grounds  we  might  question,  for  instance, 
the  authenticity  of  the  histories  of  Thucydides  or  Tacitus.  AVe 
see  from  the  correspondence  of  Tacitus  with  the  younger  Pliny 
respecting  the  eruption  of  Vesuvius,  what  pains  he  took  to  collect 
authentic  information ;  yet,  if  we  possessed  that  part  of  his  history 
which  contained  an  account  of  the  eruption,  we  should  not  pro- 
bably find  in  it  the  name  of  the  younger  Pliny. 
■  It  is  affirmed,  or  assumed,  universally  by  the  ancients,  that  the 
art  of  writing  was  known  at  Rome  from  its  very  foundation  ;  and 
the  same  fact  is  allowed  by  the  best  modern  authorities.  We  have 
examined^  this  question  in  the  Introduction.  But  to  suppose  that 
the  Eomans  never  used  an  art  which  they  knew  is  absurd  ;  and  to 


SIR    G.    C.    lewis's    OBJECTIONS. 


110 


;^^ 


ajk^ 


suppose  that  they  never  used  it  for  ])ublic  purposes  is  incredible. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  were  i)ublic  documents  and  inscrip- 
tions in  the  time  of  Komulus,  or  that  they  survived  till  the  times 
of  record.  Dionysius,  in  a  passage  to  which  we  have  already  re- 
ferred, speaks  of  tlie  treaty  with  Veil  being  engraved  on  a  column. 
Other  material  and  tangible  evidences  of  tlie  history  would  be  the 
walls  and  buildings  on  the  Palatine  and  the  Quirinal,  the  Yetus 
Capitolium,  the  Sabine  Temples  on  the  Quirinal,  the  Temple  of 
Jupiter  Feretrius,  &:c. ;  not  to  speak  of  religious  and  domestic 
customs,  as  the  festival  to  Consus,  the  marriage  rites,  the  funeral 
libations  to  Tatius,  and  other  matters  of  the  like  nature.  It  cannot 
be  said,  therefore,  that  the  history  was  "  devoid  of  all  credible 
external  attestation." 

The  assertion  that  the  history  is  "  a  patchwork  of  explanatory 
legends  "  is  quite  gratuitous,  and  a  begging  of  the  whole  question. 
But  before  entering  upon  this  subject,  we  will  advert  for  a  moment 
to  the  objection  drawn  from  Romulus's  youth. 

"  In  spite  of  his  youth  (for  he  v/as  only  eighteen  years  old  when 
he  founds  Rome),  and  his  early  life  passed  among  herdsmen  and 
in  rustic  pursuits,  Romulus  appears  from  the  very  commencement 
of  his  reign  as  a  wise  legislator,  versed  in  all  the  arcana  of  political 
science.  Dionysius,  indeed,  intimates  more  than  once  that  he  acts 
upon  the  advice  of  his  grandfather,  ^N'umitor  ;  this  expedient,  how- 
ever, does  not  substantially  diminish  the  improbability  and  incon- 
sistency of  the  received  account.  The  history  is  evidently  constructed 
upon  the  principle  of  collecting  all  that  is  characteristic  and  excellent 
in  the  primitive  institutions  and  condition  of  Iiome,  and  attributing 
it  to  the  invention  of  the  founder  Romulus.  The  narrative  is 
formed  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Cyropa3dia  of  Xenophon  and 
Plutarch's  Life  of  Lycurgus,  as  in  those  works  the  institutions 
are  real,  but  the  account  of  their  original  establishment  is  fictitious, 
and  the  motives  and  reasons  attributed  to  the  founder  are  con- 
jectural. Thus  Cicero  considers  the  formation  of  the  Roman  state 
as  due  to  the  wisdom  of  Romulus  alone.  Consistently  with  this 
view,  he  enumerates  all  the  natural  and  political  advantages  of  the 
site  of  Rome,  which  he  attributes  to  the  foresight  of  Romulus,  in 
selecting  so  highly  favoured  a  position,  and  one  so  well  fitted  to 
become  the  capital  city  of  a  great  empire.  The  story  of  the  birth 
of  the  twins,  indeed,  implies  a  dilferent  cause  for  the  site  of 
Rome,  for,    according   to   this  fable,   it   is   founded   on  the   spot 


120 


HISTOllY   OF   THE    KINGS   OF   KOME. 


NATUKE    OF    EAKLY    KOMAX    HISTORY. 


121 


where  they  were  exposed,  suckled  by  the  wolf,  and  discovered  by 
Faust  ul  us." 

It  is  rather  damaging  to  this  argument  from  the  youth  of 
Eomulus  that  the  author  should,  in  a  note  in  the  same  page,  have 
adverted  to  the  parallel  of  Augustus.  That  emperor,  at  the  time  of 
his  uncle's  death,  was  precisely  of  the  age  of  Romulus  when  he 
founded  liome ;  yet,  in  spite  of  the  opposition  which  he  expe- 
rienced, he  succeeded  in  seizing  the  sceptre  of  the  world.  This 
surely  is  a  much  more  extraordinary  feat  than  the  founding  of 
what  was  at  first  only  a  small  city. 

We  have  seen  that  the  story  of  Eomulus's  life  among  the  herds- 
men is  part  of  the  invention  necessary  for  tracing  his  descent  from 
^neas  ;  and  for  the  same  reason  we  may  dispense  with  Dionysius's 
2jrar/matical  account  of  his  acting  on  the  advice  of  his  grandfather, 
Numitor.  We  are  not  concerned  about  Cicero's  praises,  which  are 
no  doubt  rhetorically  exaggerated,  and,  under  the  name  of  Eomulus, 
are  only  a  panegyric  upon  Eome  itself.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  Eomulus  was  compelled  to  found  his  city  where  he  did  by 
necessity;  for  it  was  about  the  only  vacant  space  left  in  the 
neighbourhood. 

But  the  comparison  of  the  early  history  of  Eome  to  Xenophon's 
Cyropredia,  or  Plutarch's  Life  of  Lycurgus,  is  certainly  a  most  un- 
fortimate  one.  Both  these  works  are  the  productions  of  a  highly 
literary  age ;  while  all  that  is  told  of  the  age  of  Eomulus  is  rude 
and  fragmentary.  ]S"either  the  Asylum,  nor  the  rape  of  the  Sabines, 
could  have  been  invented  by  way  of  models  worthy  of  imitation  ; 
and,  in  fact,  Cicero  feels  himself  obliged  to  offer  a  sort  of  apology 
for  the  latter.^  We  need  not  here  advert  to  the  silly  speeches 
which  Dionysius  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Romulus,  such  as  his  dis- 
course upon  government,  founded  upon  a  complete  mistake  of  the 
Eomulean  constitution ;  though  we  suppose  it  is  the  flourishes  of 
this  rhetorician  that  have  partly  suggested  the  comparison  with  the 
Cyropoedia. 

The^  assertion  that  the  history  is  written  on  the  principle  of 
collecting  all  that  is  characteristic  and  excellent  in  the  primitive 
institutions  and  condition  of  Eome,  and  attributing  them  to 
Eomulus,  is  not  only  unfounded,  and  in  the  highest  degree  im- 
probable ;  it  is  also  contrary  to  what  the  author  has  just  before 

1  •'  Novum  quodaani  et  subagi-este  consiHum."— De  Rep.  ii.  7. 


laid  down,  that  the  history  is  a  patchwork  of  explanatory  legends, 
*'  partly  political  and  institutional,  i)artly  monumental  and  local, 
partly  religious  and  ritual."  Which  of  these  two  contradictory 
In^potheses  are  we  to  accept  as  the  author's  real  view  ?  The  insti- 
tutions are  admitted  to  have  existed  ;  the  legends  respecting  them 
either  existed,  or  they  did  not.  If  they  existed,  then  the  story  of 
Eomulus  was  not  imagined  in  an  after  age  like  the  Cyroioa3dia ;  if 
they  did  not  exist,  then  the  history  could  not  have  been  formed 
out  of  an  explanation  of  them.  One  of  these  two  hypotheses  must 
necessarily  be  false ;  but  -we  believe  them  to  be  both  false. 

*'  In  pursuance  of  the  same  general  view,"  continues  Sir  Corne- 
wall  Lewis,  '*  Eomulus  is  represented  as  dividing  the  people  into 
tribes  and  curia?,  as  creating  the  Senate,  as  organizing  the  military 
force,  as  originating  the  institutions  of  the  Triumph,  the  Spolia 
Opima,  and  the  colonial  law,  as  laying  the  foundations  of  all  the 
religious  system,  and  as  establishing  the  law  of  marriage  and  of 
filial  relations.  In  all  these  matters  his  wisdom  is  highly  com- 
mended, and  he  is  shown  in  the  character  of  the  ideal  king,  equally 
prudent  in  council,  and  brave  in  war.  At  the  same  time,  as 
scarcely  any  laws  bore  his  name,  it  was  necessary  to  say  that  his 
ordinances  were  for  the  most  i^art  unwritten  :  if  any  law^s  attributed 
to  Eomulus  appeared  in  the  digests  of  Ler/es  liegke  which  existed 
in  the  Augustan  age,  they  were  only  ancient  legal  rules,  registered 
by  the  official  scribes,  and  arbitrarily  attributed  by  them  to  the 
founder  of  the  state." 

The  institutions  here  ascribed  to  Eomulus,  as  if  they  were  the 
inventions  of  some  ideal  king,  are  for  the  most  part  absolutely 
necessary  to  all  states ;  neither  Eome  nor  any  other  city  could 
have  continued  to  exist  without  them.  As  Eomulus  was  so  young, 
he  certainly  w^anted  a  Senate  to  guide  him  with  their  advice  ;  a 
militia,  or  military  force,  must  be  organized  for  defence,  and  for 
that  purpose  it  w^as  necessary  to  institute  certain  divisions  of  the 
people,  so  that  they  might  be  assembled,  at  a  short  notice,  from 
their  daily  occupations.  All  the  other  things  enumerated  w^ere 
also  absolutely  necessary,  except,  perhaps,  the  Triumph  and  the 
Spolia  Opima ;  and  yet  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  first  king  may 
have  laid  the  foundation  even  of  these.  Neither  are  the  institu- 
tions of  Eomulus  pretended  to  have  been  absolutely  perfect.  His 
constitution  was  only  adapted  to  the  present  state  of  the  city ;  so 
that  in  the  time  of  Servius  Tullius  it  w^as  necessary  to  construct 


\'^ 


122 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROMK 


a  completely  new  one.  Xor  is  it  pretended  that  he  founded  all 
the  religious  system,  as  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  says ;  on  the  contrary,  his 
share  in  this  appears  to  have  been  extremely  small.  In  this  way, 
Tatius  did  almost  as  much  as  he,  and  Xuma  a  great  deal  more. 
Into  the  question  about  his  laws  we  shall  not  enter,  as  we  do  not 
perceive  how  it  affects  the  credibility  of  early  Eoman  history, 
whether  they  were  written,  or  unwritten. 

"Another  class  of  legends,"  continues  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  ''woven 
into  the  story  of  the  reign  of  Eomulus,  are  those  which  explain  the 
origin  of  public  buildings  and  monuments,  and  other  local  denomi- 
nations, such  as  the  Asylum,  the  Temples  of  Jupiter  Stator  and 
Jupiter  Feretrius,  the  Tarpeian  Rock,  the  Cailian  Hill,  the  Porta 
Pandana,  the  Lacus  Curtius,  the  Comitium,  the  Forum,  the  names 
of  the  Curite.  A  third  class  are  the  legends  of  a  religious  or 
sacred  character,  such  as  those  explaining  the  origin  of  the  Con- 
sualia,  the  Matronalia,  and  the  Populifugia." 

Before  we  call  the  accounts  handed  down  of  the  origin  of  these 
things  legends  invented  to  explain  them,  we  are  bound  to  show 
that  they  could  not  possibly  have  originated  or  existed  in  the  way 
in  which  tradition  tells  us  they  did.  If  we  deny,  for  instance, 
that  Piomulus  opened  an  asylum  at  Eome,  we  are  bound  to  prove 
that  he  could  not  possibly  have  done  so ;  or,  at  all  events,  that 
his  doing  so  is  improbable  to  such  a  degree  as  to  be  wholly 
incredible.  But  this,  we  submit,  has  not  been  done.  Therefore, 
to  say  that  the  tradition  respecting  the  asylum  is  an  aitiological 
legend  is  nothing  but  a  conjecture,  or  guess  ;  and,  indeed,  as  we 
have  before  shown,  not  a  very  plausible  one. 

At  the  same  time  we  will  admit  that,  in  some  of  the  instances 
mentioned,  as  the  Tarpeian  Rock,  the  Porta  Pandana,  and  the  Lacus 
Curtius,  the  ancient  explanations  are  probably  mere  guesses  to 
account  for  a  name  the  real  origin  of  which  had  fallen  into  oblivion. 
These,  however,  are  not  connected  with  any  very  material  point  of 
Roman  history  ;  while  the  various  explanations  of  them  show  that 
they  rested  not  on  any  constant  tradition.  But  the  case  is  very 
different  with  the  Asylum.  Here  tradition  is  constant ;  there  are 
not  two  explanations  of  it.  And,  as  it  concerned  a  very  important 
point  of  Roman  history,  it  is  all  the  more  likely  to  have  been  cor- 
rectly handed  down.  The  Temple  of  Jupiter  Feretrius  was  certainly, 
that  of  Jupiter  Stator  probably,  Romulean  ;  also  the  name  of  the 
Ccelian  Hill,  as  we  have  shown,  and  the  names  of  the  Curia3.     Tlie 


ALLEGED   ^^:TI0L0GICAL   LEGENDS, 


123 


Comitium,  as  the  place  where  Romulus  and  Tatius  met,  appears, 
we  believe,  only  in  Greek  writers,  certainly  not  in  Li\^.  The 
Forum  is  more  doubtful ;  for  when  Livy  speaks  of  the  Forum  in 
the  battle  between  the  Romans  and  Sabines,  it  is  only  by  a  2>^'^- 
lepsis,  and  to  make  the  account  more  intelligible  to  his  readers.^  It 
is  possible,  however,  that  there  may  have  been  the  rudiments  of 
a  forum,  as  a  mere  market,  in  the  time  of  Romulus,  and  even  of  the 
Comitium,  as  a  place  of  general  assembly  for  the  Comitia  Curiata.^ 
The  Consualia,  as  we  have  shown,'^  are  certainly  Romulean,  and 
relate  to  a  very  important  historical  event,  about  the  substance  of 
which  tradition  is  unvaried.  The  Matronalia  and  Populifugia  are 
more  uncertain.  The  latter,  in  fact,  is  decidedly  not  Romulean ; 
it  is  only,  we  believe,  Dionysius  ^  who  attributes  it  to  the  flight  of 
the  people  on  the  death  of  liomulus  ;  on  wliich  occasion,  however, 
there  was  no  flight. 

"The  ancient  institutions  of  Rome,"  continues  Sir  G.  C.  Lewi?, 
"  both  civil  and  religious,  as  well  as  the  names  of  many  remarkable 
buildings  and  public  monuments,  were  anterior  to  a  regular  con- 
temporary registration ;  or,  if  any  authentic  records  of  them  had 
ever  been  made,  they  had  for  the  most  part  perished  in  the  Gallic 
conflagration,  and  through  other  casualties,  before  the  Second 
Punic  War." 

Contemporary  registration,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  Introduction, 
began  at  aU  events  in  the  reign  of  Tullus  Hostilius,  perhaps  in  that 
of  !Numa ;  therefore,  not  long  after  the  origin  of  the  earliest  Roman 
institutions  and  buildings.  And,  though  "  the  names  "  of  some  re- 
markable public  monuments  may  have  been  anterior  to  contemporary 
registration,  yet  surely  these  must  have  formed  of  themselves  a  very 
valuable  kind  of  registration.  We  have  also  shown  that  the  Annales 
Maximi  did  not  perish  in  the  conflagration,  and  that  what  records 
did  perish  were  restored  from  memory,  and  in  other  ways.  Bi;t 
to  continue  our  extract. 

"Even  before  Rome  had  become  a  great  imperial  power,  the 
curiosity  of  her  citizens  would  naturally  be  excited  about  the  origins 
of  her  institutions,  usages,  and  buildings  ;  and  after  she  had  ex- 
tended her  dominion,  and  acquired  a  vast  renown,  the  desire  to 
learn  the  history  of  a  system  which  was  seen  to  exercise  so  great 
an  influence,  would  naturally  increase.     We  may  therefore  assume 

^  "Et  effusos  egerat  Eomanos,  toto  quantum  Foro  spatiuiu  est." — Lib.  i.  12. 
2  Yarro,  L.  I.  v.  155.  ^  Above,  p.  6Sy  scqq.  "*  Lib.  ii.  c.  ^Q. 


124 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


it  as  certain,  that  such  explanatory  legends  began  to  arise  at  a  com- 
paratively early  period,  and  that  the  supply  was  multiplied  as  the 
demand  increased." 

These  remarks  are  illustrated  and  enforced  by  a  quotation,  in  a 
note,  from  Hue's  Travels  in  Tartary.  M.  Hue,  it  appears,  came  in 
his  travels  upon  a  ruined  and  abandoned  city,  where  he  found 
a  Mongol  shej^herd,  who  knew  only  that  the  place  was  called  "  The 
(^Id  Town."  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  concludes  the  note  by  observing  : 
"  In  a  country  inhabited  by  wandering  pastoral  tribes,  such  a  state 
of  incurious  and  satisfied  ignorance  respecting  ancient  monuments 
may  exist ;  but  where  there  are  persons  having  a  fixed  habitation 
in  the  vicinity  of  a  striking  relic  of  antiquity,  and  living  as  its 
neighbours,  their  curiosity  respecting  it  is  excited ;  and  if  the  true 
history  of  it  has  perished,  a  fabidous  legend  soon  springs  up  to 
satisfy  the  cravings  of  the  appetite  for  information." 

To  make  the  parallel  complete,  it  was  incumbent  on  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis  to  show  that  Eome  had  been  reduced  to  a  state  of  solitude. 
As  it  is,  he  makes  people  constantly  living  in  the  vicinity  of  "  some 
striking  relic  of  antiquity" — say,  Tarquin's  Temple  of  Jupiter,  or 
even  I^uma's  Temple  of  Yesta — forget  altogether  who  founded 
them,  or  for  what  purpose,  although  the  proper  service  for  which 
they  were  destined  had  never  ceased  to  be  performed  in  them ;  till 
at  last,  after  a  lapse  we  will  say  of  two  or  three  centuries — we 
cannot  go  beyond  three,  for  there  is  less  than  that  space  between 
the  foundation  of  the  Capitoline  Temple  and  the  rise  of  literary 
historical  writing  at  Eome — curiosity  begins  to  revive,  and  some 
stories  are  invented  to  explaui  the  origin  of  these  monuments  ! 
Xow  would  it  not  be  just  as  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  people 
living  in  London  should  have  forgotten  for  some  centuries  the 
foundation,  say,  of  Westminster  Abbey,  and  that  it  was  designed 
for  a  place  of  worship,  though  service  was  continually  performed  in 
it,  till;  curiosity  at  last  reviving,  stories  were  invented  to  gi^atify  it, 
that  it  was  originally  a  church  dedicated  in  the  sixth  century  by 
King  Sebert  to  St.  Peter,  on  the  site  of  which  the  abbey  was  sub- 
sequently erected  by  Edward  the  Confessor  % 

The  same  illustration  will  apply  to  institutions  and  usages,  as 
well  as  buildings ;  for  these,  like  them,  must  have  been  in  daily 
use,  and  familiar  knowledge. 

In  fact,  we  are  too  apt  to  suppose  that  the  antiquities  of  Eome 
were  as  antique  to  the  Eomans  as  they  are  to  ourselves,  after  the 


LEGENDS  ABOUT   BUILDINGS. 


12 


o 


lapse  of  a  further  twenty  centuries,  and  when  most  of  the  things 
have  perished  which  served  to  identify  them. 

As  we  have  said,  there  are  less  than  three  centuries  between  the 
building  of  the  Capitoline  Temple  and  the  time  of  Fabius  Pictor, 
the  first  literary  Eoman  annalist.  And  as  it  is  certainly  assumed 
that  "  explanatory  legends  began  to  arise  at  a  comparatively  earl}^ 
period,"  we  can  hardly  place  this  period  at  less  than  a  century  and 
a  half  before  the  time  of  Pictor.  The  origin  and  founder  of  this 
famous  temple  would  therefore  have  been  forgotten  in  less  than 
a  century  and  a  half !  AVhereas  it  is  allowed  by  the  author  that 
the  mere  oral  tradition  of  events  that  are  unsupported  by  the  evi- 
dence of  monuments  may  be  accurately  preserved  for  a  period 
exceeding  a  century.^ 

The  same  reason  will  apply,  with  a  little  allowance  for  higher 
antiquity,  to  all  the  other  monuments  and  institutions  of  the 
kingly  period ;  as  the  Cloaca  Maxima,  the  Forum,  the  Circus,  &c. 
According  to  modern  views,  all  these  were  the  works  of  imaginary 
kings,  even  the  very  names  of  whom  are  not  certainly  kno^vn.  But 
to  proceed  with  our  quotations. 

"  As  the  remote  past  was  unrecorded  and  unremembered,  the 
invention  of  the  a?tiologist  was  fettered  by  no  restrictions ;  he  had 
the  whole  area  of  fiction  open  to  him,  and  he  was  not  even  bound 
by  the  laws  of  nature.  His  story  was  only  subject  to  the  condition 
that  it  must  afford  an  apparent  explanation  of  the  custom,  object,  or 
proper  name  in  question  ;  and  that  the  thoughts,  manners,  and  cir- 
cumstances introduced  must  agree  with  the  peculiarities  of  the  Eoman 
people.  We  find  accordingly  that  the  utmost  licence  prevailed  in 
the  fabrication  of  these  anticpiarian  legends  \  and  that  the  merest 
resemblances  of  sound,  or  usage,  were  sufficient  to  suggest  the  idea  of 
a  real  connexion.  Thus,  because  the  manners  of  the  ancient  Sabines 
were  severe  and  simple,  and  their  habits  warlike,  they  were  said  to  be 
colonists  of  the  Lacedaemonians,  who  were  distinguished  by  similar 
characteristics  ;  although  there  was  no  historical  proof  of  any  such 
connexion,  and  it  was  quite  unknown  to  the  early  Greek  writers." 

Thus  we  have  the  Eomans  painted  as  the  greatest  simpletons 
that  ever  existed  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  ready  to  believe  any  idle 
story  that  might  be  palmed  upon  them,  and  accept  it  for  their 
genuine  history,  which  was  entirely  composed  of  these  tales ;  for 
there  is  not  a  single  old  Eoman  monument  or  institution  the  origin 

1  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  101. 


126 


inSTOllY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


LEGENDS,   now   MADE  HISTORICAL. 


127 


of  wliicli,  according  to  modern  critics,  is  not  an  oetiological  myth. 
AVe  know  not  of  any  other  nation  so  civilized  as  the  Romans  were 
from  their  very  origin  that  possessed,  like  them,  an  entirely  imagina- 
tive history.  And  yet  the  Romans  were  not  particularly  distin- 
guished for  imagination. 

That  they  were  superstitious,  however,  and  ready  to  believe  many 
wonderful  things  in  connexion  with  the  supernatural  world,  must 
he  allowed.  But  such  a  temper  is  not  incompatible  with  the 
shrewdest  practical  sense.  Louis  XI.  of  France  was  one  of  the 
most  sagacious  monarchs  that  ever  sat  upon  the  throne.  The  Duke 
of  Burgundy,  indeed,  once  overreached  him  ;  but  on  the  whole  we 
hardly  have  a  more  striking  instance  of  worldly  wisdom.  Yet  Louis 
was  the  prey  of  the  most  abject  superstition.  So  the  Romans  might 
have  believed  many  miraculous  and  incredible  things  on  points  con- 
nected with  religion,  and  yet  have  not  been  so  easily  imposed  upon 
in  matters  which  concerned  their  every-day  life. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  however,  needed  not  to  have  reserved  the  proviso 
that  the  explanations  of  the  cetiologist  "  must  agree  as  to  thoughts, 
manners,  and  circumstances  with  the  peculiarities  of  the  Roman 
people."  The  Asylum,  the  rape  of  the  Sabines,  the  deification  of 
Romulus  were  certainly  not  in  accordance  with  the  thoughts  and 
manners  of  that  later  generation  for  whose  edification  they  are 
said  to  have  been  invented.  And  this  circumstance,  as  we  have 
already  endeavoured  to  show,  is  a  proof  that  they  were  not  invented 

at  all. 

An  ethnogi'aphical  hypothesis  is  not  a  legend ;  and  if  some  of  the 
Romans,  misled  by  "  the  merest  resemblances  of  sound  or  usage," 
thought  that  the  Sabines  were  descended  from  the  Lacedoimonians, 
we  are  afraid  that  the  same  reproach  will  touch  now  and  then  even 
some  eminent  modern  ethnographers  and  philologists,  who,  in  in- 
vestigating modern  subjects,  would  not  readily  admit  an  interpola- 
tion into  the  history  of  England  or  Germany. 

"  On  similar  grounds  of  apparent  affinity,  Dionysius  affirms  that 
Romulus  copied  the  relation  of  the  Roman  king  to  the  Roman 
Senate,  and  the  institution  of  the  Celeres,  and  of  the  common  table 
of  the  Curire,  from  Lacedoomon." 

Romulus,  as  we  have  endeavoured  to  show,  being  of  Greek 
descent,  had  no  need  to  borrow  these  institutions  from  the 
Spartans. 

"We  must  suppose  that  the  legends  which  were  worked  up  into 


the  history  of  Romulus  were  originally  independent  and  uncon- 
nected, and  referred  only  to  the  peculiar  subject  which  they  served 
to  illustrate.  At  what  time  they  were  moulded  into  a  continuous 
narrative,  such  as  is  now  presented  to  us,  we  have  not  the  means  of 
discovering  ;  but  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  account  of  Romulus 
from  his  birth  to  his  death — from  his  Alban  origin  and  his  founda- 
tion of  the  city  to  his  political  measures,  his  wars,  and  lastly  his 
apotheosis — was  substantially  related  by  Fabius,  and  the  earliest 
historians,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  descended  to  us.  This 
narrative  was  not,  like  the  early  British  history  of  Geofi'rey  of 
]\Ionmouth,  for  the  most  part  a  purely  original  fiction ;  the  materials 
of  it  were,  to  a  great  extent,  derived  from  oral  legends,  which  were 
incorporated  into  the  history.  At  the  same  time  the  connexion  and 
the  details  must  have  been  supplied  by  the  first  compilers  ;  thus  the 
story  of  the  Asylum  was  some  local  legend  ;  that  of  the  rape  of  the 
Sabines  illustrated  the  origin  of  the  festival ;  that  of  the  interven- 
tion of  the  Sabine  women  was  probably  a  separate  story ;  but  in  the 
narrative,  as  we  read  it,  the  Asylum  is  the  cause  of  the  rape  of  the 
Sabine  women,  and  the  rape  of  the  Sabine  women  is  the  cause  of 
their  interposition  between  the  hostile  armies.  The  three  events, 
once  independent  of  each  other,  have  become  continuous  links  in 
the  same  historical  chain." 

Although  in  this  paragraph  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  appears  to  be  uncer- 
tain at  what  time  "the  legends"  were  formed  into  a  continuous 
i^.arrative,  yet  the  whole  context  shows  him  plainly  enough  to  have 
been  of  opinion  that  it  was  done  by  Fabius  and  the  earliest  his- 
torians. For  he  says  that  "the  connexion  and  the  details  must 
have  been  supplied  by  the  first  compilers  ; "  and  these  could  have 
been  no  other  than  Fabius  and  the  earliest  historians.  If  this  be 
not  so,  then  there  must  have  been  historians,  or  compilers,  before 
the  period  of  literary  history,  or  of  history  written  and  published 
for  the  public ;  which  is  quite  at  variance  with  the  views  of  Sir  G. 
C.  Lewis,  though,  for  our  part,  we  think  it  probable  enough. 

The  theory,  then,  stands  thus  :  about  two  centuries  before  the 
Christian  era  there  was  no  account  whatever  of  the  origin  and 
progress  of  Rome ;  only  some  scattered  oral  legends  without  any 
connexion  whatever  between  them  ;  the  first  compilers  adopted 
these,  and  worked  them  into  "  continuous  links  in  the  same  his- 
torical chain." 

It  is  truly  surprising  that  a  people  which  appears  to  have  en- 


128 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


RECONSTRUCTED   HISTORY. 


129 


deavoiired  at  least  to  preserve  some  memory  of  their  affairs — since 
there  must  at  all  events  have  been  a  list  of  consuls  from  the 
expulsion  of  the  kings  down  to  the  time  of  Fabius,  a  period 
of  more  than  three  centuries — should  have  been  in  such  utter 
ignorance  of  their  history. 

Eut,  passing  this  over,  let  us  observe  that  the  theory  involves 
two  most  extraordinary  facts  :  first,  that  these  scattered  legends, 
which  were  wholly  unconnected,  were  still  capable  of  being  placed 
together  in  an  intelligible  relation  of  cause  and  effect ;  and  second, 
what  is  still,  perhaps,  more  astonishing,  that  the  first  compilers 
should  have  agreed  in  weaving  them  together  in  the  same  con- 
nexion. The  two  earliest  known  writers  of  Eoman  history,  Fabius 
and  Cincius  Alimentus,  were  contemporaries,  and  were  speedily 
followed  by  other  writers,  in  whose  time  the  oral  legends,  if  such 
they  were,  must  have  still  survived ;  yet  all  these  writers  agreed  in 
representing  Roman  history  substantially  in  the  same  manner,  and 
with  only  those  slight  divergences  which  show  that  they  drew  from 
independent  sources  !  Surely  this  is  much  more  incredible  than  to 
suppose  that  some  sort  of  history,  or  at  all  events  the  materials  for 
it,  had  been  handed  down. 

But  as  we  have  touched  upon  this  subject  in  the  Introduction, 
we  need  not  here  dwell  upon  it. 

''  But  although  there  is  a  continuity  of  narrative,"  proceeds  Sir 
G.  C.  Lewis,  "  running  through  the  story  of  Romulus  j  though  the 
successive  events  stand  to  one  another  in  an  intelligible  relation  of 
cause  and  effect ;  yet  we  can  trace  throughout  the  deliberate 
invention  of  the  setiologist ;  we  can  perceive  that  each  subject  is 
treated  after  the  manner  of  Ovid's  Fasti.  The  story  is  formed  by 
an  aggregation  of  parts  :  there  is  no  uninterrupted  poetical  flow  or 
epic  unity.  Instead  of  resembling  a  statue  cast,  in  one  piece,  in  a 
foundry,  it  is  like  a  tesselated  pavement,  formed  into  a  pattern  by 
stones  of  different  colours.  Even  Kiebuhr,  who  conceives  the 
story  of  Romulus  to  be  founded  on  a  heroic  lay,  is  forced  to 
acknowledge  that  parts  of  it  '  are  without  the  spirit  or  features 
of  poetry.'" 

It  is  difficult  to  perceive  how  a  narrative  which  is  admitted  to 
have  '*  continuity,"  and  "  the  successive  events  of  which  stand  to 
one  anotlier  in  an  intelligible  relation  of  cause  and  effect,"  should 
resemble  a  tesselated  pavement.  If  it  does  so — for  we  must 
confess  that  we  do  not  exactly  see  the  resemblance — it  may  be 


■:J 


fHi 


i 


ascribed  to  want  of  art  in  the  early  historians  j  for,  by  the  critic's 
own  admission,  they  had  all  the  materials  with  which  to  construct 
a  narrative  of  uninterrupted  flow.  And  this  want  of  art  is  the  best 
proof  of  their  good  faith.  If  we  had  had  of  these  early  times  an 
elaborate,  easy-flowing  narrative,  we  might  with  good  reason  have 
suspected  it  to  be  a  literary  invention.  The  early  writers,  w^ho  are 
reflected  in  Livy,  took  the  narrative  as  they  found  it.  Tradition, 
adding  perhaps  a  little  embellishment,  had  seized  upon  only  tlie 
more  striking  events,  which  accordingly  may  stand  out  rather  too 
prominently,  and  obscure  the  connecting  causes.  These,  however, 
did  not  the  less  exist ;  and  we  would  therefore  rather  compare  the 
history  to  a  pearl  or  diamond  necklace,  in  which  the  thread  is 
hidden  by  the  jewels  which  it  connects. 

Into  the  next  paragraph  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  remarks,  beginning 
at  p.  437  with  the  w^ords,  *'  The  great  majority  of  the  modern 
critical  writers,"  and  ending  at  p.  441  with  the  words,  "no  better 
than  historical  forgeries,"  we  need  not  enter,  because  with  the 
substance  of  it  w^e  cordially  agree ;  and  have  indeed  already 
quoted  the  concluding  portion  of  it  to  support  our  reprobation  of 
the  practice  of  reconstructing  history.  The  tenor  of  the  paragraph 
in  question  is  a  brief  but  sensible  condemnation  of  this  practice  in 
writers  like  ^N'iebuhr,  Mommsen,  and  Schw^egler,  who,  though  they 
condemn  in  toto  the  accounts  of  the  reign  of  Romulus,  and  indeed 
of  the  kings  in  general,  as  false  and  fictitious,  nevertheless  select 
from  it  materials  with  which  they  build  up  a  version  of  their  own. 
There  can  be  no  third  method.  We  must  either  show,  as  we  have 
attempted  to  do,  that  early  Roman  history  may  really  rest  on 
authentic  record,  or  tradition  converted  into  record  before  it  had 
grown  obsolete,  and  therefore,  making  due  allowance  for  such  early 
times,  that  it  may  in  the  main  be  true  3  or,  with  Sir  G.  Cornewall 
Lewis,  we  must  entirely  reject  it. 

That  writer  proceeds  to  say  :  "  :N'othing  consistent  or  intelligible 
can  be  extracted  from  the  representation  of  the  political  history  of 
Romulus  as  it  is  given  in  the  received  narrative.  He  is  described 
as  an  elective  king,  and  yet  his  chief  title  to  the  throne  seems  to 
be  that  he  is  of  the  royal  family  of  Alba.  His  powers  are,  under 
the  constitution  formed  by  himself,  extremely  limited.  There  is  a 
popular  assembly,  with  extensive  privileges  ;  a  Senate,  of  whose 
decrees  he  is  merely  the  executor.  Yet  all  the  organization  of  the 
state  is  derived  from  him  alone ;  he  is  the  author  of  all  the  civil 

K 


130 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   EOME. 


ABSOLUTENESS    OF   KOMULUS. 


131 


and  religious  institutions;  no  person  is  named  as  taking  any  in- 
dependent part  either  in  the  Senate  or  in  the  popular  assembly. 
He  is  represented  as  governing  mildly  and  in  the  spirit  of  a  con- 
stitutional king  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign ;  but  as  afterwards 
becoming  despotic,  although  he  meets  with  nothing  but  obedience 
at  home  and  successes  in  war,  and  there  is  nothing  to  arouse  his 
fears  or  awaken  his  jealousy.  The  joint  government  with  Tatius, 
which  is  described  to  have  lasted  in  the  utmost  harmony  for  five 
years,  is  only  conceivable  on  the  supposition  that  the  offices  of  the 
two  kings  were  honorary,  and  unaccompanied  with  real  power — a 
supposition  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  old 
narrative.  Even  the  Spartan  kings,  small  as  were  their  powers, 
lived  in  perpetual  discord ;  and  it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  such 
a  relation  as  is  described  in  the  received  account  to  have  existed 
between  Eomulus  and  Tatius,  is  unexampled  in  authentic  history." 
These  objections  are  a  good  example  of  that  mode  of  criticism 
which  saddles  on  the  history  the  faults  of  an  historian,  and  charges 
it  with  inconsistencies  which  do  not  belong  to  itself,  but  to  one 
or  two  of  the  writers  who  have  undertaken  to  give  an  account  of 
it.  What  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  here  calls  "the  received  narrative"  of 
the  political  history  of  Eomulus,  is  the  account  of  Dionysius  of 
Halicarnassus,  a  Greek  imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  Latin 
tongue,  a  rhetorician  who  frequently  invented  out  of  his  own 
head  speeches  that  could  never  have  been  delivered  and  events 
that  could  never  have  happened,  and  who  was  in  particular  noto- 
riously ignorant  of  the  Eoman  constitution.  When  Sir  G.  Cornewall 
Lewis  accepts  the  description  of  Eomulus  having  been  an  elective 
king,  of  his  powers  having  been  extremely  limited,  of  his  having 
been  merely  the  executor  of  the  decrees  of  the  Senate,  one  would 
have  thought  that  his  suspicions  might  have  been  awakened  by 
what  he  himself  adds  afterwards,  that  all  the  organization  of  the 
state  is  derived  from  him  alone,  that  '*no  person  is  named  as 
taking  any  independent  part  either  in  the  Senate  or  in  the  popular 
assembly."  But  no ;  he  accepts  these  flat  contradictions  in  the 
lump,  without  stopping  to  inquire  how  they  arose ;  he  considers 
this  imhroglio  an  actual  part  of  the  history,  and  then  proceeds  to 
make  it  an  argument  against  its  credibility.  ]^ow  suppose  a 
foreigner  settled  in  London,  imperfectly  acquainted  with  our  lan- 
guage, and  still  more  imperfectly  with  our  institutions,  should  have 
written  for  his  countrymen  a  history  of  England  full  of  the  most 


glaring  blunders  ;  would  posterity,  from  ol)serving  the  contradictions 
between  his  work  and  those  of  better  informed  historians,  be  jus- 
tified in  pronouncing  the  whole  history  itself  fictitious  1  Yet  this 
is  precisely  what  Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis  does  in  the  present  ease. 

The  account  which  that  writer  accepts  of  the  early  Eoman 
constitution  is  that  of  Dionysius,^  the  errors  of  which  have  been 
pointed  out  by  Eubino"  and  other  writers.  Dionysius,  who  seems 
to  have  formed  his  idea  of  the  reign  of  Eomulus  from  those  of  the 
subsequent  kings,  who  were  certainly  elective,  or  at  least  were  so 
constitutionally,  there  makes  Eomulus  summon  the  people  together 
and  address  them  in  a  long  speech,  which  he  says  was  suggested  by 
his  grandfather  Xumitor,  but  which  could  have  existed  nowhere 
but  in  the  head  of  the  writer.  In  this  speech  Eomulus  leaves  to 
the  people  the  choice  of  a  monarchy  or  a  republic ;  to  wdiicli  the 
people  reply  in  another  speech  by  electing  him  king.  This  is 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  authority  for  Eomulus  being  described  as  an 
''elective"  king;  but  when  he  adds  that  ''his  chief  title  to  the 
throne  seems  to  be  that  he  is  of  the  royal  family  of  Alba,"  this  is 
a  complete  misconception  of  the  Eomulean  constitution.  Eomulus 
rules  by  divine  right.  He  is  king  by  the  will  of  the  gods,  mani- 
fested by  augury,  agreeably  to  the  representation  of  Livy.^  So  also 
Ennius  ^  represents  the  people  passively  awaiting  which  king  the 
issue  of  the  quarrel  between  Eomulus  and  Eemus  may  give  them  : 

"  Sic  expectabat  populus,  atque  ora  tenebat 
Rebus,  utri  magui  victoria  sit  data  regni." 

Eecker,  indeed,  affirms,^  that  the  portent  of  the  twelve  vultures 
concerned  only  the  hmldi7ig  of  the  city.  But  this  is  a  direct 
contradiction  of  Livy,  who  says  :  "Intervenit  avitum  malum,  regni 
iiipido;^'  and  further  on :  "ut  dii,  quorum  tuteloe  ea  loca  essent, 
auguriis  legerent,  qui  nomen  novre  urbi  daret,  qui  conditam  imperio 
regeret,  ...  ad  inaugurandum  templa  capiunt."  ^ 

The  matter  is  further  illustrated  by  another  passage  in  Livy  : 
"  Vocata  ad  concilium  nmltitudine  ....  jura  dedit ;  quae  ita  sancta 

1  Lil).  ii.  c.  3,  scqq. 

^  Kom.  Stnatsv.  V>.  i.  S.  7,  Anm.  1  ;  and  the  Second  Section,  **  Yon  dem 
Kiinigthume." 

3  Lib.  i.  c.  6 ;  cf.  c.  18,  "sicut  Romulus  augurato  urbe  condenda  refjmim 
(uh  ptus  est. " 

4  Ap.  Cic.  Dc  Div.  i.  48. 

5  Rom.  Altei-th.  ii.  i.  S.  294  ;  Anm.  602.  «  Lib.  i.  6. 

k2 


v»y/  '. 


132 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF  EOME. 


generi  hominum  agresti  ratus  fore,  si  se  ipse  venerabilem  insignibus 
imperii  fecisset,  quiim  cetero  liabitu  se  augustiorera,  turn  maxime 
lictoribus  duodecim  sumptis,  fecit."     Whence,  as  Paibino  observes, 
it  appears  clearly  enough  that  he   did  not  mean  to  establish  his 
ordinances  by  the  consent  of  the  people,  but  by  the  awe  inspired 
by  his  dignity.     Such  is  the  view  of  all  the  best  ancient  writers. 
Eomulus  is  an  absolute  monarch,  ruling  by  divine  right,  the  foun- 
tain of  all  law  and  justice,  the  supreme  commander,  the  chief  priest 
of  his  people,  amenable  to  no  tribunal  but  that  of  public  opinion.^ 
The  Senate  are  only  his  advisers  ;  it  is  he  who  has  created  them  for 
that  purpose,  and  to  suppose  that  he  was  merely  the  executor  of 
their  decrees  is  one  of  the  greatest  possible  mistakes.    Cicero  clearly 
discriminates  their  functions  as  those  only  of  a  council,  and  kind 
of  Senate.'^     Dio   Cassius,  who  was   much   better   informed   than 
Dionysius  respecting  the  early  Itoman  constitution,  in  a  passage 
which  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  himself  has  already  quoted,  makes  Eomulus 
tell  the  Senate  that  it  was  his  office  to  command  them,  and  not 
theirs  to  control  him.^     Even  Dionysius  himself,  as  usual,  is  not 
consistent ;  for  in  another  place  he  tells  us  that  in  the  regal  times 
there  was  neither  equality  of  right  nor  freedom  of  speech,  that  the 
kings  out  of  their  own  will  decided  all  suits,  and  that  whatever 
they  determined  was  law.'^    X  passage  upon  which  Eubino  remarks^ 
that  it  is  so  unlike  Dionysius's  usual  manner  that  he  must  liave 
copied  it  from  some  Eomcui  source  ;  which  is  only  saying  that  he 
did  not,  on  this  occasion,  make  it  out  of  his  own  head.     Xay,  even 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  himself  brings  forward  a  sample  of  these  contra- 
dictions, and  remarks  :  "  Dionysius  seems  to  forget  his  account  of 
the  limited  powers  of  the  Eoman  king ;  for  he  describes  the  Tnter- 
reges  as  possessing  an  absolute  authority :  tTrtira  BtafcXj/pwca^fvot, 
ToiQ    \ayov(jL    deKU    TrpwroLQ    direCWKav   ap^eiv    tviq   TroXewg  ti]V   avro- 

^  "Nobis  Romuhis,  ut  libitum,  imperitaverat." — Tac.  Ann.  iii.  26.  "Jus 
privati  petere  solebant  a  regibus." — Cic.  De  Rep.  v.  2. 

2  "  Itaque  hoc  consilio,  et  quccsi  senatu  fultus  ct  munitus,"  &c. — De  Rep. 
ii.  9,  s.  15. 

^  Kol  T€\os  elTTCJ/  '6tl  iyw  vjxas,  S>  irarepf?,  i^eXc^afxi^v  ovx  '^va  v/jlus  i/xol 
dpXVT^i  ciAA'  'Iva  e7&)  v/uuv  iiriraTTOiixi. — Fr.  t.  i.  p.  7  (ed.  Bekker). 

•*  ovTTco  yap  tot  ^v  o\jt  laouo/xla  irapa.  'Pwfxaiois,  out'  l(n}yopia,  ovb*  iv  ypa(pa7i 
anravTa  toL  Si/caia  TiTayfx4va'  dWot  Td  fihu  dpxo-^ou  oi  ^aaiXels  €<^'  aJrcoj/  ctuttov 
ToTs  deofiiPOLS  Tcts  5i/cay,  Koi  to  diKaLcodcv  vir'  iKfivuVj  tovto  vSfxos  rv. — Lib.  x. 
c.  1. 

5  Rom.  Staatsv.  B.  i.  S.  125;  Anm. 


I- 


ABSURDITIES   OF   DIONYSIUS   AND   PLUTARCH. 


133 


» 1 


Kparopa  apxv^'-  "  Yet  such  is  the  author  from  w^hom  he  takes  the 
*'  received  history  !  " 

The  account  of  Eomulus  having  been  despotic  in  his  later 
days  rests  only,  as  we  have  already  shown,-  on  the  authority  of 
Dionysius,  Plutarch,  and  other  Greek  authors.  The  absurdities  of 
these  writers  are  intolerable.  Thus,  Plutarch  represents  that  in 
the  battle  with  the  Yeientines,  fourteen  thousand  of  them  fell,  and 
more  than  one-half  of  them  by  the  hand  of  Eomulus  himself  !  ^ 
In  all  probability,  the  whole  population  of  Yeii — men,  Avomen,  and 
children — did  not  amount  to  more  than  fourteen  thousand.  Dio- 
nysius ^  has  a  still  more  absurd  exaggeration  when  he  states,  that 
at  the  death  of  Eomulus  the  Eomans  had  an  army  of  4G,000  foot 
and  1,000  horse !  Such  are  the  authors  on  whom  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
founds  the  received  history  of  Eome. 

The  same  writer  objects  to  the  joint  government  of  Eomulas  and 
Tatius,  because  there  is  no  example  in  authentic  history  of  any 
joint  reign  lasting  in  harmony  for  five  years.  Such  is  the  hard 
lot  of  early  Eoman  history  !  if  it  relates  anything  that  has  a 
parallel,  it  is  immediately  said  to  be  coj^ied ;  if  it  relates  something 
that  has  no  parallel,  it  is  said  to  be  unexampled,  and  therefore 
incredible.  Xay,  although  it  may  have  a  parallel  from  which  it 
could  not  possibly  be  copied — as,  for  instance,  the  achievements 
of  so  youthful  a  king  as  Eomulus,  the  history  of  which  was  in 
existence  long  before  the  time  of  Augustus — that  will  not  save  it 
from  being  rejected.  Thus,  relate  whatever  it  may,  it  cannot  escape 
censure.  Eut  we  do  not  think  that  the  present  instance  *'  is  only 
conceivable  on  the  supposition  that  the  offices  of  the  two  kings  were 
honorary,  and  unaccompanied  with  real  power."  We  are  of  opinion, 
as  we  have  endeavoured  to  show,  that  Eomulus,  during  the  reign 
of  Tatius,  was  in  reality  quite  subordinate  ;  that  he  was  a  king  only 
by  sufferance,  and,  if  not  actually  conc[uered,  yet  reduced  to  a  con- 
dition that  was  not  very  different.  It  was  the  harmony,  therefore, 
of  the  superior  and  the  inferior  j  of  the  man  who  could  command, 
and  the  man  who  knew  only  to  obey. 

We  have  now  gone  through,  we  believe,  all  the  objections  that 
have  ever  been  brought  against  the  history  of  Eomulus,  certainly 
all  that  have  been   urged  by   Schwegler   and   Sir   G.   C.  Lewis. 

1  Credibility,  &c.  voL  i.  p.  432,  note  109  ;   Dionys.  ii.  57. 

2  Above,  p.  115.  3  i^^jiii,  25.  "*  Lib.  ii.  c.  16. 


'h:mi'. 


134 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   HOME. 


THE  INTERREGNUM. 


135 


It  lias  been  subjected  to  the  most  searching  ordeal  by  men  of  great 
learning  and  acuteness  ;  it  has  been  examined  and  cross-examined 
like  a  witness  in  a  court  of  justice ;  all  its  weak  points  have  been 
probed  to  the  very  bottom,  and  yet  we  are  of  opinion  that  nothing 
has  been  established  to  shake  its  general  probability  and  truth. 

With  regard  to  the  results  of  the  inquiry,  we  think  it  may  be 
affirmed  that  such  a  king  as  Eomulus  actuall}^  existed,  and  that  he 
was  the  founder  of  Eome.     If  he  was  invented  as  its  founder,  the 
invention  was  a  ver^^  clumsy  one ;  for,  unless  facts  had  not  been 
too  strong  for  them,  the  Eomans,  with  their  desire  to  trace  back 
their  origin  to  the  heroical  ages,  would  have  done  better  to  go  at 
once  to  iEneas  or  Ulysses,  just  as  the  Tusculans  claimed  Telegonus, 
or  the  Venetians  Antenor.      But  Eome  was  a  late-founded  city, 
the  very  latest  indeed  in  those  parts ;  Alba  Longa,  and  probably 
several  other  cities  in  the  neighbourhood,  had  been  in  existence 
several  centuries  before  it.      In   the  face  of  these  facts,  it  was 
impossible   to   place   its   foundation   in   the   Trojan   times.     The 
memorials  of  Eomulus  as  its  founder  were  too  recent  to  be  oblite- 
rated or  forgotten.    There  were  considerably  less  than  two  centuries 
of  astronomical  years  between  the  death  of  Eomulus  and  the  com- 
pletion of  the  Capitoline  Temple  by  Tarquinius  Superbus ;  perhaps 
not  more  than  a  century  and  a  half,  if,  as  is  very  probable,  the 
length  of  the  reigns  of  the  first  two  kings  has  been  exaggerated. 
For  though  it  is  possible  that  the  death  of  ISIuma  may  have  been 
recorded  in  the  Annales  IMaximi,  which  were  preserved,  yet  the 
death  of  Eomulus  and  the  accession  of  Xuma  could  not  have  been 
so  recorded  ;  and  hence  there  was  an  opportunity  to  exaggerate  the 
length  of  the  reign  of  these  two  kings  ;  which  could  not  be  done 
with  those  of  their   successors.     And  in  the  Capitol  Tarquinius 
placed  the  statues  of  all  the  kings  that  had  reigned  before  him. 
Livy,  a  judicious  and  sensible,  not  to  say  somewhat  sceptical  writer, 
intimates  no  doubt  that  Eome  was  founded  by  Eomulus,  though 
he   rejects   all  that  precedes  its  foundation  as  a  tissue  of  fables ; 
and  indeed  well  might  he  reject  so  clumsy  a  contrivance  as  the 
connecting  of  Eome's  history  with  that  of  Alba  ;  a  city  with  which 
the  Eomans  appear  to  have  had  no  connexion  till  the  time  of  their 
third  king,  and  then  a  hostile  one.     Eut  it  was  their  only  chance 
of  tracing  their  descent  from  the  heroical  ages. 

If  they  had  an  inducement  to  invent  this  part  of  their  story, 
they   could  have  had  none   to  invent  the  facts  of  the  rei^n  of 


I- 


|:. 


Eomulus,  several  of  which  redound  very  little  to  their  glory.  The 
opening  of  an  asylum  for  fugitives  and  vagabonds,  the  rape  of  the 
Sabines,  the  partial  suT)jugation  of  their  city  by  Tatius,  are  events 
which  are  very  likely  to  have  taken  place  in  those  days  in  a  newly- 
founded  state  ;  but  they  are  not  such  as  a  man,  forming  a  history 
of  his  countrymen  from  imagination,  would  have  been  likely  to 
invent.  The  reign  of  Tatius  especially,  whose  name  appears  to 
have  been  very  unpopular  among  the  Eomans,  must  have  been 
highly  unpalatable;  and  nobody  who  wished  his  story  to  be 
accepted  would  have  ventured  on  imagining  it. 

The  events  just  enumerated  we  believe  to  be  true  in  the  main ; 
also  the  institutions  of  Eomulus,  and  his  wars,  in  their  general 
outline,  but  not  perhaps  in  detail.  In  many  of  the  circumstances 
of  his  reign  there  may,  perhaps,  be  some  exaggeration ;  and  the 
supernatural  parts  of  it  are  of  course  false  in  themselves,  but  not 
false  as  viewed  in  relation  to  the  ideas  and  manners  of  the  age, 
and  what  the  Eomans  were  then  capable  of  believing.  On  the 
whole,  we  think  that  the  history  has  suffered  more  from  oblivion 
and  obliteration  of  parts,  which  render  it  sometimes  obscure,  than 
from  invention  and  interpolation. 

We  will  now  proceed  with  the  course  of  the  history. 


SECTION   IV. 


THE    INTERREGNUM. 


if-' 


No  sooner  was  Eomulus  dead  than  disputes  about  the  su- 
preme power,  and  a  desire  to  seize  it,  arose  among  the  Fathers. 
These  factions  wxre  not  excited  by  individuals,  for,  as  among 
a  new^  people,  there  was  nobody  who  was  particularly 
eminent ;  they  arose  rather  among  the  different  orders  of  the 
state.  The  Sabine  part  of  the  population,  wdiich  since  the 
death  of  Tatius  had  not  been  represented  by  a  king,  desired 
one  to  be  chosen  from  among  them,  lest  they  should  be 
deprived  of  their  just  share  of  power  ;  wdiile  the  old  Eomans, 
on  the  other  hand,  disdained  a  foreign  sovereign.  Yet, 
though  vie\vs  were  divided  on  this  point,  the  kingly  form  of 
government  was  universally  desired,  since  there  was  no  ex- 
perience of  the  liberty  enjoyed  under  a  commonwealth.      In 


V 


136 


HISTOKY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


this  state  of  things  the  Fathers  became  alarmed  lest,  as  the 
disposition  of  many  of  the  surrounding  cities  was  hostile 
towards  Eome,  some  attack  from  without  should  be  made 
upon  it,  wdiile  it  was  thus  without  a  government,  and  the 
army  without  a  general.  All  thought  that  some  head  should 
be  appointed,  yet  none  could  prevail  upon  himself  to  concede 
that  post  to  another.  As  a  method  of  compromise,  therefore, 
the  hundred  Fathers  agreed  to  take  the  government  upon 
themselves  ;  dividing  themselves  into  ten  decurice,  in  each  of 
which  certain  individuals  sliould  be  appointed  in  wdiom  the 
supreme  power  was  to  be  vested.  Ten  ruled  by  turns,  but 
only  one  among  them  had  the  lictors  and  the  ensigns  of  royalty. 
His  reign  lasted  five  days,  and  was  enjoyed  by  all  in  turn. 
This  mode  of  government  lasted  a  year,  and,  from  its  occurring 
between  the  reign  of  two  kings,  was  called  the  Interregnum, 
a  name  which  it  still  retains..  But  now  the  plebeians  began  to 
show  symptoms  of  discontent,  and  loudly  complained  that 
their  servitude  was  multiplied,  that  they  had  a  hundred 
masters  instead  of  one.  When  the  Fathers  became  aware  of 
this  feeling,  they  resolved  to  gain  the  favour  of  the  peo^^le  by 
offering  spontaneously  what  they  would  otlierwise  be  forced 
to  concede  ;  and  while  they  gave  the  supreme  power  into 
the  hands  of  the  people,  they  at  the  same  time  retained  as 
much  privilege  as  they  bestowed.  For  they  decreed  that 
whomsoever  the  people  ^  chose  for  a  king  should  be  confirmed 
in  that  dignity,  if  they  ratified  the  choice  by  their  authority. 
The  same  rule  is  observed  now^  in  proposing  laws  and  magis- 
trates, though  the  force  of  it  is  destroyed.  For  the  Fathers 
give  their  authority  before  the  people  give  their  votes. 

Then  the  Interrex,  having  called  an  assembly,  addressed  it 
as  follows: — "Choose  a  king,  Quirites ;  such  is  the  decision 

1  These  passages  sliow  that  the  populus  might  inchule  some  2^^cheians.  It 
is  the  plebeians  who  begin  to  murmur,  "fremere  deinde  ^;Zc&5,"  and  they 
are  pacified  by  the  election  of  a  king  being  referred  to  the  ^^o^nilus,  "adeo  id 
gratum  plebi  fuit,"  &c.— Liv.  i.  17.  The  populas  was  the  amiy— those  who 
had  a  right  to  vote— and  among  these  the  clients  were  plebeians.  Though 
there  were  also,  perhaps,  other  j)lebeians  who  fonned  no  part  of  the  populus. 
The  sequel  of  the  passage  shows  that  the  Senate  reserved  a  veto  on  the  choice 
of  the  people.  2  Tj^^t  is,  in  Livy's  time. 


M{ 


ELECTION   OF  NUMA   TOMPILIUS. 


137 


-li 


of  the  Fathers ;  and  may  your  choice  be  auspicious.  The 
Fathers  will  give  it  their  authority,  provided  you  shall  elect 
a  king  wlio  may  be  worthy  of  succeeding  Eomulus."  The 
people  were  so  gratified  by  this  proceeding  that,  not  to  appear 
behindhand  in  liberality,  they  merely  passed  a  resolution 
that  the  Senate  should  name  the  person  who  was  to  rule 
over  them. 

It  happened  that  there  was  then  living  at  Cures,  in  the 
Sabine  territory,  a  man  named  Numa  Pompilius,  famed  for 
his  justice  and  piety.  He  w^as  also  as  perfectly  skilled  as  it 
was  possible  to  be  in  that  age,  in  all  haw,  both  divine  and 
liuman.  His  teacher,  because  no  other  can  be  pointed  to,  is 
falsely  said  to  have  been  the  Saniian  Pythagoras  ;  but  it  was 
certainly  more  than  a  hundred  years  later,  in  the  reign  of 
Servius  Tullius,  that  Pythagoras  gathered  round  him  a  crowd 
of  studious  youths  in  the  furthest  j)art  of  Italy,  about 
Metapontum,  Heraclea,  and  Crotona.  From  which  distant 
places,  even  if  he  had  been  contemporary  with  Xuma,  how 
could  his  fame  have  reached  the  Sabines  ?  or  how,  as  he 
taught  in  a  language  they  were  ignorant  of,  could  any  among 
them  have  desired  to  become  his  pupil  ?  or  with  what  guard 
could  a  single  man  have  arrived  there,  who  would  have  had 
to  traverse  the  territories  of  so  many  races,  differing  in  lan- 
guage and  manners  ?  I  am  of  opinion,  therefore,  tliat  Numa 
derived  his  virtues  from  his  ow^n  mind  and  temperament,  and 
that  his  knowledge  and  wisdom  were  not  so  much  the  fruits 
of  foreign  learning,  as  of  that  severe  and  rugged  discipline 
which  distinguished  the  ancient  Sabines,  formerly  the  least 
corrupted  of  all  peoples. 

The  Eonian  Fathers,  on  hearing  the  name  of  ISTuma,  did  not 
venture  to  prefer  any  one  of  their  own  faction,  nor  any  one 
of  the  other  Fathers  or  citizens,  to  him ;  and  although  they 
were  aware  that,  by  choosing  a  Sabine  king,  they  should  add 
gi^eat  weight  to  that  party,  yet  they  unanimously  decreed  that 
the  crown  should  be  offered  to  Numa. 

Dionysius  says  ^  that  the  Eomans  and  Sabines  had  agreed 
that  the  one  race  should  choose  a  king  among  the  other,  and 

1  Lib.  ii.  c.  h'^. 


11 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 

it  is  x-)ossible  he  may  liere  be  right,  as  Livy  says  that  the  choice 
was  made  by  the  Eomaii  Fathers  only.  This  would  account 
for  the  alternation  of  Pioman  and  Sabine  kings— Eomulus, 
Numa  Pompilius,  Tullus  Hostilius,  Ancus  ]Marcius. 

Remarks. — Schwegler  postpones  his  remarks  about  the  mter- 
regnum  till  he  comes  to  review  it  as  part  of  the  Eoman  constitu- 
tion.^    With  respect  to  its  historical  worth,  lie  observes  that  those 
who  see  in  Eomulus  and  IsTuma  only  imaginary  personages  cannot 
doubt  that  the  interval  between  them  is  also  devoid  of  authen- 
ticity, and  that  all  that  the  historians  say  about  it  are  mere  abstrac- 
tions from  the  later  constitution.     This  is  the  more  certain,  as  the 
elaborate   (durchdachte)   system   of    pohtico-religious   ideas  out  of 
which   the   peculiarly  Eoman  institution   of  the  Interregna  pro- 
ceeded, could  not  possibly  have  existed  in  the  first  beginnings  of 
the  city,  but  could  only  have  been  gradually  developed.     Lastly,  it 
appears  from  the  contradictions  of  the  historians,  that  their  accounts 
of  the  details  were  not  taken  from  authentic  tradition,  but  were 
constructed  by  them.     And  he  illustrates  this  by  remarking,  in  a 
note,  that  Livy  does  not  agree  with  Dionysius,  nor  these  two  with 
Plutarch  ;  and  that  Zonaras,  who  copies  Plutarch,  must  have  found 
a  different  account  in  Dio  Cassius,  since  he  says  that  he  knows  of 
other  things  having  been  said  respecting  the  interregnum. 

Schwegler's  position,  that  those  who  do  not  believe  in  Eomulus 
and  ISTuma  will  not  believe  in  the  interregnum,  will  not  be  dis- 
puted, but  is  not  conclusive  for  those  who  do  beheve,  nor  convinces 
them  that  it  is  a  mere  abstraction.  I^or  will  they  be  convinced  by 
considering  the  elaborateness  of  the  system  j  for  the  rule  of  ten 
senators  in  turn  seems  a  simple  contrivance  enough,  and  the  most 
natural  one  to  have  been  adopted  in  the  abeyance  of  a  king.  That 
Dionysius  should  disagree  with  Livy  may  not  seem  extraordinary 
after  what  we  have  already  seen  of  the  former  historian,  nor  does 
it  afford  any  conclusive  argument  against  the  truth  of  the  his- 
tory. But  the  fact  is,  that  in  this  case  they  substantially  agree, 
as  Sir  George  Cornewall  Lewis  acknowledges,-  and  Cicero  ^ 
also  agrees,  though  in  general  terms.  They  differ  only  in  the 
number  of  the  senators,  which  Livy  makes  100,   and  Dionysius 


OF   THE   IXTERREGES. 


139 


1  Buch.  xiv.  §  15. 


2  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  442,  note  109. 
^  De  Rep.  ii.  12. 


200.  The  subject  of  the  number  of  the  Senate  we  shall  examine 
in  another  place.  We  need  hardly  trouble  ourselves  about  Plu- 
tarch, or  Zonaras,  who  copies  him  ;  and  if  the  latter  found  in  Dio 
Cassius  something  that  differed  from  Plutarch,  it  was  probably  the 
more  correct  accounts  of  the  Latin  historians,  for  Dio  Cassius  is  a 
much  better  source  than  Plutarch.^ 

Schwegler  goes  on  to  suppose  that  the  annalists — meaning,  we 
suppose,  Fabius  Pictor,  Cincius  Alimentus,  and  the  earliest  writers 
of  Eoman  history  for  the  public —had  related  the  first  interregnum 
only  briefly  and  obscurely,  just  as  Livy  relates  the  two  following 
interregna.     "They  related  summarily,"  he  says,-  '*how  after  the 
death  of  Eomulus  the  power  of  the  state  returned  to  the  Patres, 
and  how'  the  Patres  conducted  the  interregnum,  until  an  agreement 
was  come  to  about  the  election  of  the  ncw^  king.     The  later  his- 
torians, each  interpreting  the  brief  account  of  the  annalists  in  his 
own  fashion,  have  by  the  term  pcitres  understood  the  Senate.     But 
as  in  the  time  of  the  republic  it  Avas  not  the  Senate,  or  the  patrician 
part  of  the  senators,  but  the  whole  body  of  patricians  to  whom 
during  an  interregnum  the  ruling  power  devolved,  and  who  chose 
the  Interrex,  so  we  may  suspect  that  these  waiters,  misled  by  the 
later  method  of  speaking,  misunderstood  the  term  patres,  which 
they   found  in  their  sources,   and  erroneously  referred  it  to  the 
Senate,  instead  of  the  whole  body  of  patrician  citizens.     This  as- 
sumption has  the  less  difficulty,  since  Livy  has  made  the  same  mis- 
take with  regard  to  the  2)atru7n  aiicforitas,  and  Cicero  with  regard 
to  the  pafres  minorum  gentium^ 

In  this  very  modest  paragraph,  all  i\\Q  ancient  w^riters  who  have 
described  the  first  interregnum  are  set  down  for  ignoramuses,  while 
a  few  German  critics,  like  Pecker  and  Schwegler  himself,  are  alone 
in  the  right.  Among  these  blundering  writers,  Schwegler  enume- 
rates in  a  note  Livy,  Dionysius,  Plutarch,  A^^pian,  Voj^iscus,  Eutro- 
pius,  Sextus  Eufus,  Servius,  and  Suidas.  The  reputation  of  some 
of  these  writers  we  will  not  undertake  to  defend ;  but  we  will  add 
another  to  the  list,  whom  Schwegler  has  not  thought  fit  to  men- 
tion. Cicero  also  is  of  opinion  that  the  first  interregnum  was  con- 
ducted by  the  Senate.  For  he  tells  us  :  ^  "  Ergo  quum  ille  Eomuli 
senafus  .  .  .  tentaret  post  Eomuli  excessum  ut  ipse  gereret  sine  rege 
rempublicam,"  &c.     And  a  few  lines  further  :  "  Quum  prudenter 

1  riutarcli  absurdly  states  that  each  interrex  ruled  only  for  six  hours  of  the 
day,  and  six  liours  of  the  night.  2  B.  i.  S.  657.  3  D^  Rep.  ii.  13. 


140 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   EOME. 


illi  2yrincipes  novam  et  inaiiditam  ceteris  gentibus  inter regni  ineundi 
rationem  excogitaverunt,  ut,  quoad  certus  rex  declaratus  esset,  nee 
sine  rege  civitas,  nee  diuturno  rege  esset  uno,"  &c. 

From  this  consentient  view  of  the  best  authorities,  an  unpre- 
judiced person  might  be  inclined  to  suspect  that  it  is  not  they,  but 
the  German  critics,  who  are  in  error.  And  there  are  a  few  consi- 
derations which  suggest  that  this  may  really  be  the  case. 

First,  if  these  authorities  were  misled  by  the  following  later 
usage  in  their  interpretation  of  the  term  ^x^^res,  and  referred  it  to 
the  Senate  instead  of  the  whole  patrician  body,  it  is  only  natural  to 
suppose  that  they  would  also  have  been  misled  by  later  usage  m  tJie 
tiling  itself  J  as  well  as  the  term  ]  and  that,  in  accordance  with  the 
more  modern  custom,  they  would  have  referred  the  interreges 
created  after  the  death  of  Eomulus  to  the  whole  patrician  body, 
and  not  exclusively  to  the  Senate.  But  here  their  accoimt  is  at 
variance  with  the  custom  of  their  own  times.  They  do  not,  hy 
construction,  refer  a  usage  that  prevailed  under  the  republic  to  the 
times  of  Eomulus.  It  is  the  German  critics  themselves  who  are 
guilty  of  this  very  unhistorical  and  uncritical  method,  which  they 
are  so  ready  to  charge  against  the  ancient  writers ;  and  who  infer, 
hy  construction,  that  a  practice  which  existed  under  the  republic 
also  existed  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  monarchy. 

But,  secondly,  there  must  have  been  a  vast  difference  between 
the  patrician  body  in  the  time  of  Eomulus,  and  in  the  time  of  the 
republic,  or  even  of  the  subsequent  kings.  It  had  in  the  time  of 
Eomulus  only  just  been  created.  Besides  the  senators  themselves, 
the  remaining  patricians  were  their  own  children,  young  men  who, 
according  to  the  severe  Eoman  laws  of  paternity,  were  entirely  in 
their  power  ]  whilst  in  a  few  generations  not  only  would  this  near 
relationship  have  in  a  great  measure  ceased,  but  also  the  patrician 
body  not  included  in  the  Senate  would  have  become  much  more 
numerous  and  powerful.  And  here  we  have  a  reason  why  the 
Eomulean  Senate  may  have  asserted  an  authority  which  they  could 
not  maintain  in  later  days. 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  here  adopt  the  view  of  the  ancient 
writers,  that  the  patrician  body  sprung  fi'om  the  senators  created  by 
Eomulus.  Our  reasons  for  thinking  that  this  was  their  real  origin, 
and  that  they  did  not  consist  of  the  whole  body  of  citizens,  will  be 
given  further  on,  when  we  come  to  treat  of  the  early  Eoman  con- 
stitution ;    where  also  we  hope  to  show  that  it  is  not  Livy  and 


*  • 


1^ 


L^l.^^«■^a 


METHOD   OF   ELECTING  A  KING. 


141 


Cicero,  but  the  German  critics,  who  have  "  made  mistakes "  about 
the  pcitrum  anctoritas  and  the^)a^?Ys  minortim  gentium. 

Lastly,  the  Interreges  who  succeeded  Eomulus  were  entirely  dif- 
ferent in  character  from  those  of  later  times,  when  the  office  had 
become  a  merely  formal  one  (though  containing,  perhaps,  at  the 
same  time,  a  sort  of  protest,  or  latent  claim,  in  favour  of  patrician 
privilege),  for  the  purpose  of  naming  a  king,  or  other  supreme 
magistrate.  It  was  the  design  of  the  Senate,  after  the  death  of 
Eomulus,  to  rule  without  any  king  at  all ;  to  be  themselves  kings 
by  turns.  Properly  speaking,  therefore,  they  were  not  Interreges  ; 
and  that  term  can  have  been  applied  to  them  only  retrospectively, 
after  the  people  had  compelled  them  to  abandon  that  attempt,  and 
to  permit  another  king  to  be  chosen.  Hence  it  appears  how  erro- 
neous it  would  be  to  argue  backwards,  as  the  German  critics  do, 
from  the  subsequent  practice  to  the  primitive  fact. 

From  tliese  considerations,  and  without  insisting  on  the  weight 
of  ancient  testimony,  which,  Ave  are  aware,  is  now  considered  mere 
dust  in  the  scales,  wo  are,  nevertheless,  of  opinion  that  even  the 
balance  of  mere  probability  is  in  its  favour,  when  it  tells  us  that  the 
first  Interreges  were  in  the  Senate,  and  created  by  the  Senate. 

"  The  method  of  proceeding  in  the  election  of  a  king,"  continues 
Schwegler,  "  was,  according  to  the  description  of  Livy  ^  and  ])iony- 
sius,'-^  as  follows  :  The  Interrex  summons  an  assembly  of  the  people, 
to  which,  after  previous  consultation  and  agreement  with  the  Senate, 
he  proposes  somebody  for  election :  the  people  decide,  and  the 
Patres  then  confirm  the  person  elected.  Cicero  apparently  relates 
the  proceeding  differently :  ^  the  Interrex  proposes  (rogat),  the 
Populus,  assembled  in  Curiate  Comitia,  elects ;  and  the  elected  person 
then  obtains  from  the  Curia;  the  invperium,  by  means  of  a  lex 
curiata.  But  though  the  account  of  Cicero  differs  in  expression 
from  that  of  Livy  and  Dionysius,  it  agrees  entirely  in  substance. 
Wliat  the  latter  call  auctoritas  p)atrnm,  Cicero  calls  the  lex  cunata 
de  i7npe7^io  :  both  expressions  signify  the  same  thing,  in  so  far  as 
the  confirmation  of  the  Patres  consisted  in  the  conferring  of  the 
imperium.  Though  Cicero's  account  is  more  correctly  conceived, 
because  it  clearly  shows  that  the  same  curia?  which  had  elected  the 
king,  also  conferred  upon  him  the  impeHum;  while  the  other 
account  (even  when  we  correctly  take  the  expression  patres  of  the 

1  Lib.  i.  17,  22,  32,  47;  iv.  3.  a  Lib.  ii.  60;  iii.  1,  36,  &c. 

3  De  Eep.  ii.  13,  17,  18. 


142 


HISTOPxY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


-whole  patrician  body)  presents  a  false  appearance,  as  if  the  elective 
assembly  (the  2)opulus),  and  the  confirming  assembly  (the  patres 
audores),  were  different  assemblies  ;  although  at  that  time  there 
was  still  only  one  kind  of  popular  assembly — the  Comitia  Curiata. 

The  "  fixlse  appearance  "  here  imputed  to  the  accounts  of  Livy 
and  Dionysius,  exists  only  in  the  brain  of  the  critic.  For  those 
authors  really  meant  that  the  electing  assembly  and  the  confirming 
assembly  were  different  bodies  ;  that  the  first  was  the  Comitia 
Curiata,  and  the  second  the  Senate.  According  to  Scliwegler's  view, 
the  Comitia  Curiata  both  elected  and  confirmed.  A  more  absurd 
blunder  it  is  impossible  to  commit ;  a  more  preposterous  assertion 
cannot  be  made  than  that  the  audoritas  i^citrum  and  the  lex  curiata 
were  identical.  It  is  on  this  ground  that  Schwegler  reconciles  the 
accounts  of  Livy  and  Dionysius  with  that  of  Cicero.  But  the 
accounts  of  these  authors  may  be  reconciled  in  a  very  different  way; 
namely,  by  a  passage  in  Cicero  which  the  German  critics  take  care 
to  keep  in  the  background,  or  at  all  events  never  quote  at  full 
len^^h.  It  is  the  following  : — "  Quibus  quuni  esse  prrestantem 
Xumam  Pompilium  fama  ferret,  pra3termissis  suis  civibus  regem 
alienigenam  patrihus  audorihus  sibi  ij)se  x>^P^dus  ascivit ;  eumque 
ad  regnandum  Sabinum  hominem  Eomam  Curibus  accivit.  Qui  ut 
hue  venit,  quamquam  populus  curiatis  eum  comitiis  regem  esse 
jusserat,  tamen  ipse  de  suo  imperio  curiatam  legerii  Uditr  ^ 

Here  we  have  the  patriim  aifdoritas  and  lex  curiatcc  mentioned 
as  separate  and  distinct  things.  And  while  Cicero  thinks  it  neces- 
sary to  explain  why  Xuma  should  have  resorted  tivice  to  the  same 
body,  the  Comitia  Curiata,  first  for  his  election,  then  for  the  im- 
periuTiij  he  would  certainly  have  explained  further  why  he  should 
have  gone  to  them  thrice^  if  the  2^cit)^^s  audores  whom  he  mentions 
were  nothing  else  but  these  same  Comitia.  But  we  will  not  enter 
further  into  these  questions  at  present,  as  we  shall  have  to  consider 
them  again  in  the  sequel. 

Sir  G.  Come  wall  Lewis  observes  ^  on  the  interregnum  :  ''  The  form 
of  government  which  is  recorded  to  have  succeeded  the  death  of 
Eomulus,  and  to  have  lasted  for  a  year,  is  equally  inconsistent  with 
experience,  and  its  duration  for  so  long  a  period  is  quite  incon- 
ceivable. The  senators,  Avhether  100,  150,  or  200  in  number,  are 
related  to  have  divided  themselves  into  Decuria3  or  companies  of 
ten ;  the  order  of  precedence  of  each  decuria  was  then  determined 

1  De  Rep.  ii.  13.  «  Credibility,  &c.  cli.  xi.  §  10. 


r*' 


REMARKS  OF   SIR  G.   C.   LEWIS. 


143 


by  lot ;  and  each  of  the  ten  senators  successively  exercised  the 
entire  powers  of  king  for  five  days,  with  the  title  of  Interrex. 
According  to  this  arrangement,  seventy-three  senators  would  have 
filled  in  turn  the  regal  office  during  a  year  of  3G5  days.  That  so 
many  transfers  of  the  supreme  power  should,  at  a  time  when  all 
constitutional  and  legal  checks  were  in  a  very  rude  and  inefficient 
state,  have  been  quietly  made,  is  wholly  incredible.  Even  a  com- 
munity much  more  civilized  than  Eome  could  have  been  in  the 
eighth  century  before  Christ,  above  a  hundred  years  before  the 
legislation  of  Solon,  could  hardly  pass  with  success  through  such  an 
ordeal.  A  similar  interregnum  is  related  to  have  occurred  between 
the  reigns  of  Xuma  and  Tullus  Ilostilius,  and  between  those  of 
Tullus  Hostilius  and  Ancus  Marcius  ;  but  in  each  case  to  have 
been  of  short  duration.  Dionysius  says  that  the  form  of  govern- 
ment was  found  to  fail,  on  account  of  the  difference  of  character 
and  policy,  in  the  successive  Interreges ;  that  in  consequence  the 
Senate  consulted  the  people,  whether  the  power  should  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  a  king,  or  of  annual  magistrates ;  and  that  the 
people  referred  the  matter  back  to  the  Senate,  who  decided  in 
favour  of  a  king.  He  does  not,  however,  state  (what  would  inevit- 
ably have  happened)  that  this  form  of  government  led  to  civil  dis- 
cord, and  to  a  successful  attempt  of  some  powerful  and  ambitious 
senator  to  retain  his  office  for  more  than  five  days.  This  would  be 
the  certain  result  if  such  a  polity  were  attempted  as  a  permanent 
mode  of  government.  Livy  finds  another  cause  for  the  discontinu- 
ance of  the  inter-regal  form  of  government :  he  describes  the  people 
as  complaining  that  they  had  a  hundred  masters  instead  of  one, 
and  as  declaring  that  they  would  not  endure  any  king  in  whose 
election  they  had  no  voice." 

Let  us  observe,  first  of  all,  that  the  Romulcan  year  is  said  to  be 
of  365  days,  though  it  is  notorious  that  the  astronomical  year  of 
twelve  months  was  not  introduced  at  Eome  till  the  reign  of  Xuma, 
and  did  not  even  then,  probably,  supersede  the  year  of  ten  months 
in  civil  affairs,  as  we  have  endeavoured  to  show  in  the  Introduction. 
But,  though  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  Eomulean  year,  at 
least,  having  had  only  ten  months,  yet  that  allowance  is  never 
made  by  modern  critics. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  proceeds  to  observe  that,  under  such  a  form  of 
government  as  the  interregnum,  '*  some  powerful  and  ambitious 
senator"  would  inevitably  have  succeeded  in  retaining  his  office  for 


144 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


CONCERNING   THE    INTERREGNUM. 


145 


more  than  five  days.  Upon  which  we  will  observe  that  here  also 
the  ancient  tradition  is  much  more  consistent  and  probable  than  the 
modern  criticism.  Among  so  recent  a  people  there  was  not,  as  Livy 
expressly  says,  and  could  not  possibly  have  been,  any  one  senator 
much  more  powerful  than  the  rest ;  and  this  was  the  reason,  as 
Livy  also  tells  us  in  the  same  passage,  why  none  of  the  senators  had 
aspired  to  be  king.^  In  foct,  if  we  consider  that  Eome  had  existed 
only  thirty-one  years— for  we  must  deduct  a  sixth  from  the  thirty- 
seven  years  ascribed  to  Romulus — and  if  we  further  reflect  that 
the  whole  polity  had,  as  it  were,  to  begin  anew  after  the  Sabine 
invasion,  we  shall  see  that  there  had  not  been  tiuie  for  any  one 
man  or  family  to  acquire  vast  possessions  and  a  preponderating 
influence. 

"A  community  much  more  civilized  than  Eome"  would  have 
had  a  much  worse  chance  than  she  of  passing  through  such  an 
ordeal.  It  is  by  fortunate  generals  aided  by  mercenary  armies,  or 
by  men  whose  families  have  accumulated  great  wealth  and  influence 
through  a  long  series  of  years,  that  the  supreme  power  in  a  state  is 
commonly  seized.  The  "constitutional  check"  at  Rome  was  the 
best  that  could  possibly  be  devised.  Tlie  j^eople  were  the  army. 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  himself  has  shown,  after  Livy,  that  they  were  not 
disposed  to  endure  any  but  a  king  of  their  own  creating,  thougli 
they  did  not  actually  declare  so,  as  he  makes  them.^  If,  under  such 
circumstances,  an  ambitious  senator  could  have  seized  the  throne, 
that,  indeed,  would  have  been  a  wonder. 

And  when  we  reflect  how  many  consuls  and  dictators  held  the 
supreme  power,  not  for  five  days,  but  for  months  and  years  together 
— for  several  of  the  consuls  were  elected  three  or  four  times  over — 
and  yet  that,  with  two  or  tliree  exceptions,^  no  attempt  was  made 
during  centuries  by  any  one  of  them  to  become  absolute  master  or 
king,  is  not  that,  though  not  only  true  but  indisputable,  much  more 
surprising  than  that  not  one  of  these  five-day  Interreges  should 
have  attempted  it  1  Truly  there  is  something  in  the  old  Roman 
character  which  we  moderns  do  not  quite  understand. 

1  "  Necdum  a  singulis,  quia  nemo  magnopere  eminebat  in  novo  2)02mlo,  pro- 
venerant  factiones ;"  although,  "  certamen  regni  ac  cupido  patrum  auimos  ver- 
sabat." — Liv.  i.  17. 

2  "Nee  ultra  nisi  regem,  etabipsis  creatum,  vidchantur  passuri.'' —Lih.i.  17. 

3  Sp.  Cassius,  Maelius,  and  Manlius  are  said  to  have  aimed  at  the  regal  power. 
But  with  respect  to  Mselius  the  charge  seems  to  have  been  unfounded,  and  is 
not  entirely  certain  with  regard  to  the  other  two. 


■  - 

:--  ■ 
;•*■■' 


*'  The  existence  of  the  name  and  institution  of  the  interregnum 
in  the  historical  age  of  Rome,"  continues  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  "  may  be 
considered,  however,  as  a  proof  of  its  derivation  from  the  regal 
period.  We  can  only  account  for  it  on  the  supposition  that  it  was 
an  old  constitutional  form,  which  survived  as  a  relic  of  a  former 
state  of  things.  It  implies  an  elective  royalty  ;  for  licreditary  suc- 
cession such  an  institution  is  not  needed.  The  period  of  five  days 
really  existed  in  the  historical  time  ;  and  it  was  probably  the  term 
actually  prescribed  and  observed  under  the  kings,  its  shortness  being 
dictated  by  motives  of  jealousy,  and  being  intended  to  prevent  any 
Interrex  from  acquiring  a  dangerous  power.  If  it  was  known  that 
the  election  of  a  king  was  impending,  the  security  would  in  general 
be  adequate  ;  the  parties  contending  for  the  throne  would  take  care 
to  prevent  usurpation  ;  but  a  permanent  government  of  successive 
five-day  kings  would  be  an  impossibility,  if  the  king  was  really  at 
the  head  of  the  state,  and  was  not  a  mere  honorary  officer." 

We  have  no  remarks  to  make  on  this  paragraph,  in  which 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  goes  a  great  way  to  refute  all  that  he  has  said 
before. 

"  It  may  be  observed,  likewise,"  juoceeds  that  author,  ^'  that 
the  name  of  interrex  and  interyrgnum  is  an  absurdity  as  applied 
to  the  original  institution,  after  the  death  of  Romulus,  in  the  form 
described  by  Cicero,  Dionysius,  Livy,  and  Plutarch.  The  reign  of 
one  of  these  five-day  kings  was  only  an  interregnum  in  the  sense 
that  it  came  between  the  reign,  of  a  king  and  of  another  Interrex, 
or  between  the  reigns  of  two  Interreges.  It  was  not  conceived 
as  intervening  between  the  reigns  of  two  kings." 

Surely  the  whole  space  between  the  reigns  of  Romulus  and  Xuma 
was  an  interregnum,  whatever  was  the  number  of  Interreges  that 
filled  it.  And  each  of  these  individuals  was  therefore  an  interreXy 
and  not  a  i^ex — for  we  must  call  him  either  one  or  the  otlier.  For 
as  rex  answers  to  regnum^  so  interrex  answers  to  interregnum  ;  and 
it  would  indeed  have  been  an  absurdity  to  call  an  interrex  a  rex. 

"  Dionysius,  as  we  have  seen,  attributes  the  dislike  of  the  i3eople 
for  the  interregal  system  to  the  changeable  character  of  the  govern- 
ment. Cicero  refers  it  to  their  love  of  royalty  {De  Rep.  ii.  12), 
while  Livy  describes  it  as  arising  from  a  jealousy  of  the  poAver  of 
the  Senate.  Livy  proceeds  to  say  that  the  Senate  conceded  the 
election  to  the  people,  but  retained  a  veto  upon  their  choice.  He 
believes  that  the  formal  confirmation  of  the  Senate,  given  in  later 

L 


146 


HISTOTIY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   liOME. 


times  to  the  decision  of  the  popular  assembly  even  before  it  was 
made,  had  its  origin  on  this  occasion." 

The  object  of  this  paragraph  seems  to  be  to  throw  discredit  on 
the  history  by  showing  that  the  historians  differed  in  opinion  about 
the  interregal  system.  Here,  however,  there  is  no  question  of  facts, 
but  only  of  motives;  the  fact  is  plain,  that  the  people  from  wdiat- 
ever  motive  disliked  the  government.  Livy,  however,  agrees  with 
Cicero  in  representing  the  people  as  lovers  of  royalty.^  :N'or  does  he 
ascribe  the  resistance  of  the  people  to  jealousy  of  the  Senate.  This 
is  an  interpolation  of  the  critic's.  What  they  complained  of  w^as  the 
tyrannical  nature  of  the  government— they  had  a  hundred  masters 
instead  of  one; '^  which  agrees  very  much  with  Dionysius's  complaint 
of  the  changeable  character  of  the  government.  Cicero  also  says 
that  the  people  could  not  bear  the  interregal  government.^  And  so, 
after  all,  the  three  authors  do  not  very  w^idely  differ. 

In  a  note  Sir  G.  Cornewall  Lewis  says  :— "  A  fabulous  account 
of  the  government  of  (Enarea,  in  Etruria,  in  Aristotle  {Mirah. 
Aus.  94),  may  be  compared  with  the  description  of  this  interregal 
government.  The  city  in  question  is  reported,  from  fear  of  falling 
under  a  single  despot,  to  have  placed  the  government  in  the  hand^ 
of  emancipated  slaves,  and  to  have  changed  them  every  year." 

Contrasted  would  surely  have  been  a  better  w^ord  than  compared. 
The  Romans  wanted  "  a  single  despot  3 "  and  so  far  from  placing 
their  government  in  the  hands  of  emancipated  slaves  for  a  year, 
would  not  trust  it  in  the  hands  of  their  senators  for  five  days. 


4  << 


is 


*'The  election  of  the  new  king,"  continues  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis, 
described  as  made  by  the  Senate.  Dionysius  and  Plutarch  say 
that  it  was  the  result  of  a  compromise  between  the  old  Eoman  and 
new  Sabine  senators  :  the  former  were  to  make  the  choice,  but  the 
person  chosen  was  to  be  a  Sabine.  The  regal  office  was  accordingly 
offered  to  Numa  Pompilius,  a  native  of  the  Sabine  town  of  Cures, 
the  son  of  Pompilius  Pompo.  He  was  born  on  the  natal  day  of 
Eome,  and  was  therefore  thirty-eight  years  old  :  his  manners  were 
simple  and  austere  ;  and  he  was  renowned  for  his  wisdom,  and  for 
his  piety  to  the  gods.     At  first  with  philosophic  indifference  to 

1  "Refoiari  tamen  omnes  volebant." — Lib.  i.  17. 

2  "  Fremere  deinde  plebs,  miiltirlicatam  servitutem,  centum  pro  uno  dominos 

factos."— Ibid. 

3  «  Quum  ille  Romiili  Senatus  .  .  .  teiitaret  post  Romiili  excessuiu  ut  ipse 
goreret  sine  rege  rempublicam,  populus  id  non  tulit,"— De  Kep.  ii.  12. 

*  Chap.  xi.  s,  11.^ 


fM 


ELIXTION    OF   NUMA    TO^iPILIUS. 


147 


greatness  he  declined  the  proffered  honour ;  but  at  last  he  yielded 
to  entreaties,  and  was  unanimously  elected  king  by  the  Senate  and 
the  people.  The  ceremony  by  which  the  auspices  in  confirmation 
of  this  election  were  taken  is  minutely  described  by  Livy." 

If  Numa  was  born  in  the  same  year  that  Rome  was  built,  he  was 
not  thirty-eight  years  old  when  he  was  elected,  but  only  thirty-two. 
For  the  Pomulean  year  was  incontestably  one  of  ten  months,  and 
Pomulus  died  after  having  reigned  thirty-seven  of  such  years,  and 
the  interregnum  lasted  one  year.  The  paragraph  offers  no  other 
subject  of  remark. 

We  will  now^  return  to  the  history,  commencing  with  the  cere- 
mony just  mentioned  of  Xuma's  installation.^ 


SECTION   V. 

REIGN    OF   NUMA   POMPILIUS. 

"VViiEX  Numa  arrived  at  Rome,  he  directed  that  the  gods 
should  be  consulted  by  augury  conceiiiing  his  reign,  just  as 
Romulus  ill  building  the  city  acquired  the  kingdom  by  taking 
the  auspices.  He  was  therefore  conducted  to  the  citadel  by  an 
augur — who  thereafter,  by  way  of  honour,  obtained  the  augur- 
ship  as  a  public  and  perpetual  priesthood- — where  he  sat  on  a 
stone  seat  wdtli  his  face  turned  towards  the  south.  The  augur, 
with  his  head  veiled,  took  his  seat  on  Numa's  left  hand,  hold- 
ing in  his  right  hand  a  curved  rod  or  sceptre,  without  any 
knot  in  it,  which  is  called  a  litiiits,      Tlien,  after  a  prayer  to 

1  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  note  at  vol.  i.  p.  445  (No.  118),  treats  of  a  constitutional 
point  wliich  does  not  affect  the  credibility  of  the  history,  and  to  which  we 
shall  have  an  opportunity  of  returning. 

2  There  must  of  course  have  been  augurs  at  Rome  before  the  arrival  of 
Numa,  or  he  could  not  have  been  consecrated  by  one ;  besides,  Romulu.s 
himself  was  an  augur.  "VVe  make  this  remark  because  another  passage  in 
Livy  (iv.  4)  has  sometimes  been  quoted  as  contradictory  of  the  present  one : 
"  Pontifices  augures,  Romulo  regnante,  nuUi  erant :  ab  Numa  Pompilio  creati 
sunt."  But  of  course  Livy  only  means  here  that  there  was  no  public  priest- 
hood, or  college,  of  augurs,  in  the  time  of  Romulus  ;  which  is  consistent  with 
the  present  passage,  in  which  he  tells  lis  that  such  a  priesthood  was  established. 
.According  to  Cicero  (Rep.  ii.  14),  Numa  also  added  two  angurs  to  the  former 
number,  making  live. 

l2 


148 


HISTOllY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME, 


IXSTITUTIOXS   OF   NUMA. 


14<7 


tlie  gods,  taking  a  view  over  the  city  and  surrounding  territory, 
he  marked  out  and  determined  the  regions  from  east  to  west ; 
and  he  called  the  parts  to  the  south,  right,  and  the  parts  to 
the  north  left.      He  also  determined  in  his  mind,  as  a  sign, 
some  object  opposite  to  him  as  flxr  off  as  the  eye  could  reach. 
Then,  transferring  the  lituus  to  his  left  hand,  and  placing  his 
right  on  Numa's  head,  he  uttered  the  following  prayer : — "  0 
Father  Jupiter,   if  it  be  lawful  that  this  Numa  Pompilius, 
whose  head  I  hold,  should  be  khig  of  Eome,  declare  it  unto 
us  by  sure  and  certain  signs  within  those  boundaries  which  I 
have  marked  out."     Then  he  recited  the  auspices  which  he 
desired  to  be  sent ;  on  the  appearance  of  which  Numa  was 
declared  king,  and  descended  from  the  temple. 
J     Having  thus  obtained  the  throne,  Numa  prepared,  through 
laws  and  customs,  to  found,  as  it  were,  anew  the  city  which 
had  been  only  so  recently  established  by  force  of  arms.     He 
considered  that  it  would  be  one  of  the  best  means  to  this  end 
to  mitigate  the  fierce  disposition  of  the  people  by  accustoming 
them  to  x>eace,  for  nothing  tends  more  than  war  to  render  the 
mind  ferocious.  -\  With  this  view,  he  established  the  Janus  at 
the  lowest  part  of  the  Argiletum,  as  an  index  of  peace  and 
war ;  so  that  when  it  was  opened  it  signified  that  the  city 
was  at  war,  and  when  shut,  that  there  was  peace  with  all  the 
surrounding  nations.     After  the  reign  of  Numa,  it  has  only 
been  twice  shut :  once  in  the  consulship  of  T.  Manlius,  after 
the  end  of  the  first  Punic  war ;  and  again,  by  a  grace  which 
the  gods  have  reserved  for  our  age,  by  the  Emperor  Caesar 
Augustus,  peace  having  been  established  both  on  sea  and 
land  after  the  battle  of  Actium.     The  Janus,  therefore,  being 
shut,  and  all  the  surrounding  peoples  being  conciliated  by 
alliances  and  treaties,  Numa  had  to  provide  lest,  in  this 
absence  of  all  external  danger,  the  minds  of  the  citizens, 
which  had  been  hitherto  restrained  by  fear  of  the  enemy  and 
military  discipline,  should  luxuriate  in  idleness.  /  Therefore 
he  thought  that  the  first  thing  to  be  done  was  to  inspire  them 
with  fear  of  the  gods — the  most  efficacious  of  all  methods 
with  a  rude  and  uneducated  multitude,  as  in  that  age  they 
were.    But  as  this  could  not  be  impressed  upon  them  without 


I; 


I 


tlie  contrivance  of  some  miracle,  he  i^retended  that  he  had 
nocturnal  interviews  with  the  goddess  Egeria ;  that  it  was  at 
her  bidding  he  instituted  tlie  sacred  rites  most  acceptable  to 
tlie  gods,  and  appointed  for  each  divinity  the  proper  priests. 
And  the  first  thing  he  did  was  to  divide  the  year  into  twelve 
lunar  months.  Ihit  as  the  moon  does  not  complete  thirty 
days  in  a  month,  and  as  there  are  some  days  wanting  to  fill 
up  the  whole  year  according  to  the  course  of  the  sun,  he  so 
contrived,  by  interspersing  intercalary  months,  that  in  every 
twentieth  year  the  days  should  come  back  to  and  agree  with 
the  same  place  of  the  sun  from  which  they  had  started,  the 
true  period  of  all  the  years  being  thus  completed.  At  the 
same  time  he  appointed  the  days  called  fasti  and  ncfasti, 
because  it  would  be  sometimes  convenient  that  nothing  should 
be  transacted  with  the  people.^ 

Then  he  applied  his  mind  to  the  creating  of  priests,  although 
he  himself  performed  many  sacred  rites,  and  especially  those 
which  belonged  to  the  flamen  of  Jupiter.  But  as  he  thought 
that  in  a  warlike  city  there  would  be  more  kings  like  Eomulus 
than  like  himself,  and  that  they  would  take  the  field  them- 
selves,— lest  on  such  occasions  the  sacred  rites  discharged  by 
the  king  should  be  left  unperformed,  he  created  a  YQg\\\2iY flcnncn 
of  Jupiter,  and  appointed  that  he  should  wear  a  splendid  vest- 
ment, and  should  have  the  privilege  of  the  royal  curule  chair. 
He  also  appointed  two  oi\\Q\\fla mines,  one  to  Mars,  the  other 
to  Quirinus.  He  also  chose  Vestal  virgins,  a  priesthood  that 
had  originated  at  Allm,  and  one  not  alien  to  the  founder  of 
the  state.  ^  To  these  he  gave  a  stipend  from  the  public  money, 
so  that  they  might  assiduously  conduct  the  worship  of  the 
temple ;  and  he  rendered  them  holy  and  venerable  by  the 
vow  of  chastity,  and  by  other  ceremonies.  ^  Xuma  also  built 
himself  a  dwelling,  or  small  })alace,  close  to  the  Temple  of 
Yesta,  which  lay  under  the  northern  side  of  the  Palatine 
Hill,  about  midway  between  the  Porta  ^lugionis  and  Porta 

1  That  this  new  calendar  was  kejit  secret  is  evident  because  the  people  did 
not  know  the  dies  fasti  and  nefasti.  Hence  we  may  infer  that  in  popular  use 
the  old  calendar,  and  consequently  the  old  civil  year  of  ten  months,  went  on. 
AVe  have  adverted  to  this  subject  in  the  Introduction. 


150 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   HOME. 


Romanula.     This  appears  to  liave  been  his  official  abode  as 
chief  priest,  as  well  as  king ;  for  he  had  also  another  residence 
on  the   Quirinal.^      He  also  chose  twelve  priests  of  Mars 
Gradivus,  called  Salii,  giving  them  the  distinction   of    an 
embroidered  tunic,  and  over  that  a  brazen  breastplate  ;  and  he 
appointed  that  they  should  carry  those  celestial  shields  called 
imcilia,  and  should  make  procession  through  the  city,  singing 
certain  verses,  accompanied  with  tripiidia  and  a  solemn  dance. 
He  then  appointed  as  Pontifex  Xuma  Marcius,  the  son  of 
Marcus,  one  of  the  Fathers,  and  delivered  to  him  all  the 
sacred  rites,  written  out  and  sealed.    These  directed  with  what 
yictims,  on  w^hat  days,  and  in  which  temples,  the  sacrifices 
should  be  performed,  and  whence  the  money  should  be  taken 
to  defray  the  expense  of  them.     And  he  subjected  all  other 
sacred  rites,  both  public  and  private,  to  the  decrees  of  the 
Pontiff;  so  that  the  people  migiit  have  somebody  to  consult, 
and  tlie  confusion  of  the  sacred  law  be  prevented,  either 
through  neglecting  the   hereditary  rites  or  adopting  foreign 
ones.     Xor  was  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pontiff  to  be  confined 
to  celestial  ceremonies,  but  was  to  extend  to  the  due  per- 
formance of  funerals,  and  the  rites  for  appeasing  the  Manes ; 
also  as  to  what  prodigies,  manifested  either  by  lightning  or  in 
any  other  manner,  were  to  be  attended  to  and  expiated.    And 
in  order  to  elicit  them  from  the  divine  will,  he  dedicated  on 
the  Aventine  an  altar  to  Jupiter  Elicius,  and  consulted  that 
deity,  by  auguries,  which  prodigies  were  to  be  attended  to. 

The  minds  of  the  people  being  thus  turned  from  arms  and 
war  to  give  their  attention  to  these  things,  had  something 
wherewith  to  occupy  them :  while  the  constant  care  of  the 
gods,  who  seemed  to  be  always  present  in  human  affairs, 
imbued  the  breasts  of  all  with  such  a  piety,  that  faith  and 
the  sanctity  of  oaths  seemed  to  govern  them,  backed  by  fear 
of  the  laws  and  retributive  justice.  And  as  the  manners 
of  the  citizens  seemed  to  form  themselves  after  the  unique 
example  of  their  king,  so  the  neighbouring  nations,  who  had 
before  thought  that  a  camp,  rather  than  a  city,  had  been 
placed  in  the  midst  of  them,  to  disturb  the  peace  of  all,  now 

1  Soliiius,  i.  21. 


EGEIUA   AND   THE   CAMEN^. 


151 


began  to  respect  it,  and  to  think  it  a  wickedness  to  use  violence 
towards  a  people  that  was  totally  occupied  in  the  worship  of 

the  gods. 

There  was  a  grove  near  Eome  through  which  ran  a  stream 
proceeding  from  a  perennial  fountain  which  burst  forth  in 
a  dark  cave.     Here  Numa  frequently  repaired  alone,  as  if  to 
meet  the  goddess,  and  dedicated  it  to  the  Camencc,  because 
their  councils  with  his  wife  Egeria  were  held  there.     And  he 
instituted  a  solemn  worship  to  Faith  alone;  and  bade  the 
flamines  repair  to  her  temple  in  a  carved  chariot,  and  per- 
form the  service  with  the  hand  covered  as  far  as  the  fingers, 
to  "show  that  fiiitli  was  to  be  observed,  and  that  it  had  a  con- 
secrated seat  in  the  right  hand.     He  also  appointed  and  dedi- 
cated many  other  sacrifices,  and  x)laces  for  performing  them, 
which  the  pontiffs  call  Argei.  J  But  the  greatest  of  all  his 
works  was  the  preservation  of  peace  throughout  his  reign. 
Thus  two  kings  in  succession  contril.mted,  in  different  ways, 
to  the  augmentation  of  the  city :  one  by  war,  the  other  by 
peace.     Numa  reigned  forty-three  years,  according  to  Livy 
and  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  and  thirty-nine  according  to 
Cicero  and  Polybius.^ 
\X  Cicero  adds  ^  to  the   above  account,  that  Numa  divided 
among  the  people  the  lands  which  Pomulus  had  conquered ; 
that  he  made  the  sacred  rites  which  he  instituted  difficult  to 
be  learnt,  from  the  number  of  observances,  but  easy  to  be 
performed  on  account  of  their  cheapness :  both  w^hich  things 
would  tend  to  enhance  the  character  and  influence  of  the 
priesthood,  by  the  mystery  in  which  it  involved  them,  and  by 
the  inducement  which  it  offered  to  the  people  to  perform  the 
rites.    The  same  authority  says  that  he  also  instituted  mar- 
kets, games,  and  other  opportunities  for  the  bringing  of  men 
together. 

Remarks. — The  pacific,  inert,  and  somewhat  shadowy  character 
of  Numa,  the  attention  Avhich  he  directs  almost  exclusively  to 
rehgious  matters,  and  his  reputed  commerce  with  Egeria,  have 
afforded  the  best  handle  to  the  sceptical  critics  for  attacking  the 

1  Cic.  De  Rep.  ii.  14.  -  Il>id. 


152 


IIISTOKY    OF   THE   KIXGS   OF   ROME. 


early  Eoman  history,  and  for  attributing  to  it,  as  well  as  to  Xunia 
himself,  a  mythical  character.  AVe  are  nevertheless  of  opinion  that 
there  really  was  a  king  of  that  name,  and  that  his  reign  occupied 
the  space  between  that  of  Romulus  and  Tullus  Hostilius.  Our 
chief  reason  for  this  opinion — besides  the  constancy  of  tradition, 
which  in  the  Tcvj^n  of  !N"uma,  or  directly  after,  began  to  be  fortified 
by  record — is  the  improbability  that  the  liomans  in  thfTncyp.  of 
Tarquinius  Supcrbus,  who  erected  in  the  Capitol  statues  of  all  his 
precfecessors,  should  have  forgotten  the  kings  who  reigned  during 
thetwo  preceding  centuries,  including  Komulus  as  tlieir  Idunder. 
FilPther,  it  the  iiistory  were  fictitious,  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that 
tEe  IComans  would  have  invented  Kuma,  a  Sabine  kmff7andrthere- 
forc  a"*strong  proof  of  enduriug^  Sabine  influence,  if  not -domina- 
tidli,  as  tlie  lounder  of  their  religious  institutions.  If  they  had  had 
the  liberty  of  choice,  they  would  doubtless — as  the  history  is  con- 
fessedly writtentro^TheTjomanp  for 
this  purpose  a  Koman ;  and,  according  to  the  hypothesis  that  the 
whole  IS  a  myth,  it  would  have  been  just  as  easy  for  them  to  do 
this  as  to  invent  'N'nma. 


)chwegler  indeed  remarks:^  "If  Xuma  api)ears  as  a  Sabine, 
this  has  its  motive  not  so  much  in  the  character  of  the  worship 
which  he  established,  since  this — as,  for  example,  the  worship  of 
Vesta,  the  Salii,  &c. — is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  the  Sabines.  It 
was  rather  done  because  the  Sabine  race  was  renowned  for  its  piety, 
and  therefore  a  Sabine  seemed  best  suited  for  the  part  of  a  Numa." 
But,  if  the  worship  which  he  established  was  as  much  Roman  as 
Sabine,  that  was  a  further  reason  for  the  myth  to  have  preferred  a 
Roman  for  its  founder.  And  if  a  Sabine  was  selected  because  that 
race  was  conspicuously  pious,  then  the  Romans  had  already  had 
a  Sabine  ruler  in  King  Tatius ;  and  the  myth  might  have  fathered 
the  institutions  upon  him,  without  perpetuating  a  Sabine  dynasty. 
But,  in  truth,  Numa  was  the  second  King  of  Rome,  because  it  was 
the  turn  of  the  Sabine  part  of  the  population  to  be  represented  on 
the  throne.  His  piety  is  only  a  secondary  and  accidental  consider- 
ation ;  though  no  doubt  it  might  have  been  a  motive  with  the 
Romans  to  elect  him.  [N'or  do  we  think  that  the  objections 
brought  against  the  history  conclusively  prove  JS'uma  to  have  been 
a  mythical  person,  or  even  all  the  institutions  established  by  him  to 
have  been  false.    These  objections  we  shall  now  proceed  to  examine. 

^  S.  522,  Anm.  1. 


ESTIMATE   OF   NUMA. 


inn 


oo 


*'  We  have  already  intimated,"  says  Schwegler,^  "  how  Xuma  is 
to  be  estimated.  He  is  the  counterpart,  or,  if  you  will,  the  com- 
plement, of  Romulus.  As  the  myth  after  which  the  early  Roman 
history  was  constructed  set  out  from  the  assumption  that  Rome 
began  entirely  afresh,  brought  with  it  absolutely  no  politico-religious 
dowry,  but  produced  out  of  its  own  bosom  its  jurisprudence,  its 
constitution,  its  religion,  its  worship,  it  became  necessary  to  refer 
the  introduction  of  its  religious  forms,  as  well  as  the  establishment 
of  the  state,  of  the  military  system,  and  of  the  constitution,  to  some 
known  individual.  But  the  dissimilar  qualities  of  a  warlike  hero 
and  a  religious  founder  could  not  be  attributed  to  the  same  person, 
the  first  king,  without  the  greatest  improbability.  In  order  to 
escape  this,  the  myth  attributed  the  foundation  of  Rome  to  two 
individuals,  one  of  whom,  a  warlike  prince  and  conqueror,  founds 
the  state  ;  while  the  other,  a  peaceful  prince  and  model  of  piety,  a 
favourite  and  confidant  of  the  gods,  founds  its  religion  and  morals." 

We  have  here  an  admission  that  it  is  more  probable  and  con- 
formable to  truth  that  the  political  and  military  institutions  of  a 
state  and  its  religious  institutions  should  be  introduced  by  two 
different  persons  than  by  the  same  person  ;  and,  therefore,  the  his- 
tory as  it  stands  is  more  probable  and  conformable  to  truth  than  if 
it  had  ascribed  them  all  to  Romulus.  And  we  shall  show  further 
on  that  this  was  not  necessarily  an  invention. 

It  is  self-evident,  and  needs  no  argument  to  prove,  that  every  city 
composed,  as  Rome  is  said  to  have  been,  of  a  mixture  of  different 
peoples, — Ramnes,  shepherds,  fugitives,  Sabines,  and  others, — 
must  begin  with  new  institutions,  and  we  have  already  pointed  out 
that  those  introduced  by  Romulus  were  absolutely  indispensable. 
If  all  these  dissimilar  elements  had  been  described  as  united  under 
a  ready-made  constitution,  that  assuredly  would  have  been  a  myth. 
But  the  assertion  that  Romulus  brought  no  politico-religious  prin- 
ciples with  him  is  quite  unwarranted.  We  have  already  endea- 
voured to  show  that  he  had  such  principles  by  his  Greek  descent 
and  education,  and  that  he  applied  them  both  to  his  civil  and 
religious  institutions. 

"  That  the  state  of  the  case  with  Numa,"  continues  Schwegler, 
"  was  such  as  we  have  described,  ^that  he  was  no  more  an  historical 
person  than  Romulus,  is  manifest  from  the  abstract  nature  of  his 
personality.     He  is  nothing  but  the  founder  of  the  Roman  religion 

^  Buch  xi.  §  6. 


154 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


and  ceremonial  law.  In  this  are  included  all  his  acts,  his  whole 
personal  existence.  For  the  rest  he  is  quite  a  shadowy  being,  void 
of  all  individuality.  The  myth  indicates  this  by  saying  that  Xuma 
■was  grey  from  his  childhood.  This  trait  is  the  more  remarkable 
and  instructive  as  the  same  thing  is  said  of  the  doBmon  Tages ; 
who,  as  founder  of  the  Etruscan  discipline,  is  quite  an  analogous 
figure  to  iS'uma." 

We  may  Avell  doubt  the  critical  judgment  of  an  author  who  can 
assert  that  Tages  is  quite  an  analogous  figure  to  Xuma.  Tages  is  a 
boy  ploughed  up  in  the  fields,  avIio,  after  delivering  his  precepts, 
vanishes  as  suddenly  as  he  had  appeared ;  Numa,  when  elected 
King  of  Eome,  is  a  mature  man,  who  has  gone  through  a  long 
course  of  education  and  discipline,  and  reigns  many  years  over 
the  Eomans.  Tages  founds  the  new  discipline  of  the  Aruspices ; 
Xuma  founds  nothing  new  at  all,  but  only  establishes  ceremonies 
and  priesthoods  in  honour  of  gods  already  existing.  The  story 
of  Numa's  early  greyness  is  found  only  in  Servius ;  ^  it  is  not 
mentioned  by  the  Eoman  historians,  and  is  probably  an  absurd 
exaggeration. 

Why  nothing  is  attributed  to  ^uma  but  his  religious  acts,  we 
V      shall  consider  further  on. 

^'  The  idea  of  a  religious  founder,"  continues  Schwegler,  "  such 
as  forms  the  groundwork  of  Xuma's  character,  is,  especially  in  its 
application  to  the  age  with  which  we  are  concerned,  an  utterly 
unhistorical  and  almost  childish  representation.  Religious  rites 
and  usages  are  the  oldest  hereditaments  of  nations,  and  are  found 
in  the  first  dawn  of  history  :  no  single  individual  has  founded  the 
religion  of  the  TJmbrians,  the  Sabines,  or  Latins.  Still  less  can  it 
be  believed  that,  as  is  related  of  !N"uma,  a  single  lawgiver  should, 
in  an  already  existing  state,  have  introduced  and  founded  the  whole 
form  of  religious  worship." 

And  yet  there  are  instances  of  this  having  been  done  even  in 
modern  times.  Luther  introduced  and  established  the  whole  form 
of  the  Lutheran  w^orship  ;  Calvin,  that  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  j 
and  the  founders  of  the  Church  of  England,  that  of  the  Anglican 
Church.  Mahomet  founded  the  substance  as  w^ell  as  the  forms  of  the 
^lahometan  religion  ;  not  to  speak  of  Moses  and  the  Jewish  religion. 

All  forms  of  religious  w^orship,  even  the  oldest,  must  have  had 
an  origin,   and  have  been  founded  by  some   person  or  persons. 

1  Ad  ^n.  vi.  809. 


NUMA   AS   A   RELIGIOUS   FOUNDER. 


155 


Rome  was  a  new  nation,  and,  from  the  mixed  character  of  its 
population,  must  have  required  some  law^giver  of  this  kind. 
Romulus,  as  Schwegler  shows,  was  not  a  particularly  religious 
person ;  nor  -would  his  frequent  wars  and  the  pressing  necessit}^ 
of  regulating  the  civil  and  military  constitution  of  the  state  have 
allowed  him  much  time  for  the  affairs  of  religion.  I^or  is  it  true 
that  Numa  is  supposed  to  have  founded  the  ivhole  form  of  religious 
worship.  There  must  have  been  forms  for  those  Greek  and  other 
deities  already  established  Ijy  Romulus  ;  and  for  those  Sabine  ones 
established  by  Tatius  on  the  Quirinal.  Xor  "were  the  forms  intro- 
duced by  Xuma  altogether  new%  as  Schwegler  himself  will  tell  us 
immediately. 

"The  legend  of  ^uma,"  proceeds  that  author,  "is  further  refuted 
by  the  following  consideration.     Had  Xuma  really  established  the 
observances  and  institutions  which  tradition  ascribes  to  him,  these 
must  have  been  peculiar  to  the  Romans  ;  or  where  they  are  found 
among  other  nations,  these  nations  must  have  borrowed  them  from 
the  Romans.     Xow  they  are  all  found  among  one  or  the  other  of 
the  two  races  composing  the  Roman  nationality,   although  it  is 
incapable  of  proof,  and  indeed  is  not  even  probable,  that  either 
of  the  races  derived  them  from  the  Romans.     Thus  Xuma  is  said 
to  have  established  the  worship  of  Yesta,  and  appointed  the  first 
Vestal  virgins.     But  the  w^orship  of  the  goddess  of  the  hearth  was 
common  to  the  Latins  and  Sabines  from  the  very  beginning  ;  it  be- 
longs to  the  earliest  and  most  widely  disseminated  worship  of  the 
whole  Italo- Hellenic  race  ;  and  the  priesthood  of  Yesta  was  one  of 
the  oldest  priesthoods  of  the  Latins.     It  is,  therefore,  incredible, 
whether  Rome  was  a  colony  of  the  Alba  Longa  or  not,  that  the 
service  of  Yesta  should  have  been  introduced  at   Rome  by  the 
second  king,  a  Sabine ;  on  the  contrar}^,   the  original  settlement 
on  the  Palatine  must  have  had  this  worship,  and  have  possessed  a 
common  hearth  of  the  city.     In  like  manner  the  institution  of  the 
Salii,   and  the  establishment  of  the  Pontifices  and  Elamines,  are 
ascribed  to  Xuma ;  but  all  these  priesthoods  can  be  shown  to  have 
been  old  Latin  institutions  ;  and  Salii  especially  are  found  at  Alba 
Longa,  at  Tibur,  and  Tusculum.      It  is  further  said,  tliat  Numa 
established   the    worship   of   Quirinus    in  honour   of  the    deified 
Romulus.     But  (Juirinus  appears  before   this  among  the  gods  to 
whom  King  Tatius  erects  altars  ;  he  was  an  ancient  national  deity 
of  the    Sabines,   and  his   worship  was  certainly  older    than    the 


156 


HISTOrvY   or  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


foundation  of  Eome.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  worship  of 
Terminus,  which  :N'uma  is  related  to  have  introduced;  while, 
according  to  another  tradition,  Tatius  had  already  built  an  altar  and 
founded  a  chapel  to  that  god.  Lastly,  the  institution  of  the  Fetiales 
is  attributed  to  Numa,  though  it  was  from  ancient  times  common 
to  all  the  Italian  peoples  of  the  Latin- Sabine  stock.  The  opinion, 
therefore,  must  be  abandoned  that  all  these  institutions  proceeded 
from  the  second  King  of  Eome.  Eather,  according  to  all  pro- 
bability, the  original  settlers  on  the  Palatine,  and  the  first  immi- 
grants on  the  Quiriual,  must  have  brought  the  one  or  the  other 
of  these  worships  with  them,  and  the  amalgamation  of  them  into 
the  Eoman  religion  must  have  been  a  work  of  gradual  mediation 
and  reconciliation." 

This  agrees  with  what  we  have  already  said,  that  Numa  was  not 
so  entirely  the  founder  of  the  Eoman  religion  as  is  asserted  by 
those  whose  object  it  is  to  make  him  appear,  on  that  account,  a 
mythical  person.  AVe  are  of  opinion,  however,  that  it  did  not  take 
a  very  long  while  to  reconcile  all  these  different  worships,  and  that 
Numa  may  have  done  a  great  deal  in  this  way.  Paganism,  having 
no  dogmas,  was  not  shocked  by  a  variety  of  rites,  but  easily  admitted 

them  all. 

The  first  part  of  the  paragraph  just  quoted  contains  a  palpable 
fallacy.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  institutions  which  Kuma 
established  must  have  been  peculiar  to  the  Eomans,  and  when  they 
are  found  among  other  nations  must  have  been  borrowed  from 
them.  This  might  be  true  if  Kuma  had  invented  these  institutions; 
but  nobody  says  that  he  did.  The  worships  which  he  established 
were  not  new.  His  great  work  was  the  establishment  of  a  hierarchy 
to  superintend  the  religious  services  in  general,  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  regular  priests  for  the  service  of  those  deities  whom  he 
found  already  established,  or  whom  he  introduced,  at  Eome. 

Among  these,  it  is  not  incredible  that  Xuma  may  have  intro- 
duced the  worship  of  Vesta.  If  that  worship  was  a  Latin  as  well 
as  a  Sabine  institution,  and  even  more  Latin  than  Sabine,  yet,  as 
we  have  endeavoured  to  show  that  Eomulus  was  of  Greek  descent, 
this  may  not  affect  the  question.  Besides,  in  the  early  part  of  his 
rei^m  at  least,  when  there  was  such  a  dearth  of  women,  he  would 
not  have  been  much  inclined  to  devote  any  of  them  to  a  life  of 
chastity.  Nor,  if  there  was  any  truth  in  the  scandal  about  his 
mother,  might  he  have  felt  much  reverence  or  liking  for  the  insti- 


AVOllSHIP   OF   VESTA. 


157 


tution.  Moreover,  Schwegler  himself  shows  in  a  notc^  that  the 
near  connexion  of  the  Flamen  Quirinalis— whose  institution  is 
universally  attributed  to  Xuma— with  the  Ycbtals,  strengthens  the 
probability  that  the  latter  also  may  have  been  instituted  l)y  him. 
Thus,  as  Schwegler  points  out,  it  is  the  Flamen  Quirinalis  who 
accompanies  the  Vestals  to  Ciere,  and  it  is  in  his  house  that  the 
sacred  utensils  of  Vesta's  temple  are  buried.2  Xo  which  may  be 
added  that  it  was  the  Flamen  Quirinalis  and  the  Vestals  who 
ollcred  the  sacrifice  at  the  Consualia.^  The  connexion  of  the 
Flamen  Quirinalis  with  the  Vescals  may  have  arisen  either  from 
the  reputed  origin  of  Eomulus,  or  because  Eomulus,  as  the  founder 
of  the  city,  was  necessarily  connected  with  the  public  hearth  of 

the  city. 

It  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  to  show  that  the  worship  of  Quirinus 
and  Terminus,  and  the  institutions  of  the  Salii,  Pontifices,  and 
Flamines,  may  have  existed  elsewhere  than  at  Eome,  and  before  the 
time  of  Numa ;  since  he  is  not  t>aid  to  have  invented  them,  but 
only  to  have  established  them.  And,  indeed,  the  circumstance 
that  these  institutions  were  not  original,  but  copied,  tells  very 
much  against  the  argument  for  making  Numa  a  mythical  per- 
sonage, and  shows  him  only  a  careful,  plodding,  commonplace  sort 

of  king. 

"The  Eoman  tradition,"  continues   Schwegler,   "shows  by  its 

inconsistencies  that  the  attributing  of  these  institutions  to  Xuma 

rests  not  on  any  certain  historical  grounds,  but  is  a  mere  inference 

from  probability.     The  introduction  of  the  Fetial  ceremonies,  for 

instance,   is  not  universally  attributed   to   Xuma,    but    by   some 

writers  to  Tullus  Hostilius,  by  others   to  Ancus   Marcius.     The 

motive  for  these  different  accounts  is  clear.     The  introduction  of 

the  institution  was  ascribed  to  Xuma  as  the  founder  of  the  Eoman 

sacred  law,  of  which  the  Fetial  law  formed  part.     Others,  on  the 

contrary,  considered  that  so  peaceable  a  prince  as  Xuma,  who  never 

went  to'  war,  would  not  have  introduced  the  institution  of  the 

Fetials,  and  regulated  the  forms  for  declaring  war,  but  rather  his 

warlike  successor,  Tullus  Hostilius.    From  both  these  considerations 

together   proceeded  the  account  which  attributed  them  to  Ancus 

Marcius,  who,  according  to  Livy,-^  had  a  temper  betw^een  that  of 

Xuma  and  Tullus,  and  was  therefore  a  likely  person  to  institute 


1  S.  554,  Aiim.  2. 
3  Above,  p.  71,  scqq. 


2  Liv.  V.  40  ;  Yal.  Max.  i.  1,  10. 
■*  Lib.  i.  32. 


158 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


Avarlike  ceremonies.  There  is  the  same  variance  aLout  the  worship 
of  Yesta,  which  is  sometimes  attributed  to  iS'uma  and  sometimes  to 
Ptomulus,  and  about  the  institution  of  the  augurs,  which  is  also 
ascribed  to  both  those  kings ;  Avhilst  sometimes  JSTuma  and  some- 
times Tatius  is  represented  as  introducing  the  worship  of  Quirinus. 
The  same  also  holds  good  Avith  respect  to  Terminus.  The  intro- 
duction of  the  year  of  twelve  months  is  ascribed  by  others  to 
Tarquinius  Priscus ;  the  division  of  the  Eoman  territory  into  dis- 
tricts or  pagl  witb  their  proper  magistrates,  to  Servius  Tullius,  as 
well  as  tke  founding  of  the  trade  guilds.  Tradition,  in  referring 
these  institutions  to  Xuma,  did  not  do  so  on  precise  aud  certain 
liistorical  evidence,  but  only  because  the  character  of  these  institu- 
tions seemed  to  suit  the  general  idea  formed  of  Kuma." 

It  may  be  asked  why,  if  the  author  really  thought  that  there  was 
any  weight  in  these  objections,  he  should  have  before  represented 
i^uma  as  so  entirely  the  founder  of  the  Koman  religion,  and  even 
on  that  account  have  compared  him  with  the  supernatural  Tages  ? 

If  some  of  the  institutions  mentioned  were  referred  to  l^uma  on 
account  of  his  general  character,  that  is  enougli  to  show  Avhat  his 
general  character  Avas  ;  and  in  a  matter  of  such  high  antiq^uity  this 
may  suffice.     It  is  no  fatal  objection  that  the  origin  of  some  of  his 
institutions  was  disputed  by  Eoman  antiquaries.     In  Avhat  country 
that  has  an  ancient  history  have  not  such  matters  been  disputed  ? 
On  the  other  hand,  we  do  not  find  it  doubted  that  he  Avas  the  chief 
founder  of  the  Eoman  priesthood,  and  of  the  sacerdotal  system,  and 
the  only  founder  of  the  Eoman  sacred  law.    These  are  his  chief  and 
most  important  characteristics,  and  in  comparison  of  them  it  is  of 
little  moment  whether  he  may  or  may  not  have  introduced  a  few 
ceremonies  and  Avorships.    That  he  was  the  founder  of  the  religious 
law  tbere  was  indeed  documentary  evidence,  which  must  have  been 
in  existence~at  least  do;\ai  to  the  Gallic  conflagration ;  for  he  had 
AA'ritten  it  out  and  attested  it,  and  delivered  it  into  the  custody  of 
the  chief  pontiff.     Yet,  though  tnis  document  must  have  lasted 
centijttfes,  it  is  denied  that  the  early  Eoman  history  AA^as  at  all 
supported  by  documentary  evidence,  that  there  Avas  anything  to 
.^hovvthat  JN  uma  Avas  not  a  mythical  personage,  ancl  even  his  name 
an  invention  ! 

Btrt,  even  about  the  institutions  in  question,  more  contradiction 
has  been  imputed  than  really  exists.  Although  there  appears  to  be 
a  discrepancy  between  Cicero  and  Livy,  respecting  the  origin  of  the 


FETIAL  LAW. 


J  59 


declaration  of  Avar  by  Fetiales,  the  former  referring  it  to  TuUus 
Hostilius,  the  latter  to  Ancus  Marcius  j  ^  yet  Livy  does  not  con- 
tradict himself,  as  Scliwegler  intimates.-     The  Fetiales  AAdiich  that 
historian  introduces  in  the  reign  of  Tullus  Hostilius  ^  are  not  em- 
])loyed  in  declaring  Avar,  but  in  making  a  treaty.     Livy,  in  the  j)re- 
ceding  chapter,  represents  the  Eomans  and  Albans  as  going  to  war 
Avithout  any  previous  declaration  :  and  the  Fetiales  are  only  em- 
ployed to  draw  up  the  treaty  containing   the   conditions   to   be 
imposed  by  the  result  of  the  combat  between  the  Iloratii  and  the 
Curatii.     It  is  very  likely,  therefore,  that  Numa,  as  Dionysius  and 
Plutarch  state/  may  have  introduced  Petial  laAVS,  though  they  did 
not  extend  to  the  particular  case  of  declaring  war ;  a  circumstance 
wliich  agrees  Avith  his  peaceable  reign,  for  he  made  many  treaties, 
though  he  made  no  Avars. ^      Livy,  in  describing  the  Petial  cere- 
monies introduced  by  Ancus  Marcius,  expressly  limits  them  to  the 
declaration  of  war.^     Put  it  is  inconceivable,  if  the  institution  had 
been  altogether  ncAv,  that  LiA^'y  should  not  have  also  mentioned  its 
other  and  more  peaceable  functions.     The  declaration  of  Avar  was 
only  something  superadded  to  the  already  existing  functions  of  the 
Fetiales.  •   That  Livy  kncAV  of  their  prcAdous  existence  is  evident 
from  his  mentioning  them  under  the  reign  of  Tulkis ;  and  there  is, 
therefore,  no  ground  for  charging  him  Avith  contradicting  himself  in 
the  course  of  a  fcAV  pages.     This  gradual  development  of  the  Fetial 
laAV,  moreover,  may  have  contributed  to  throw  some  obscurity  over 
its  origin  j  and  Cicero  finding  the  Fetials  employed  for  the  first 
time — for  Numa  made  no  wars — under  Tullus,  in  the  war  between 
Eome  and  Alba,  may  haA^e  inadA^ertently  concluded  that  they  had 
their  origin  then.     If  there  is  any  truth  in  these  remarks,  then 
Schwegler's  ingenious  invention   of  a  motive  for  these  different 
accounts  falls  to  the  ground. 

The  controA^ersy  about  the  foundation  of  the  Temple  of  Yesta  Avas 
an  idle  one.   Cicero  and  Livy,  the  two  best  authorities  for  the  early 

1  Cic.  De  Rep.  ii.  17  ;  Liv.  i.  32. 

2  S.  555,  Aiim,  2. 

3  Ibid.  c.  24. 

*  Dionys.  ii.  72  ;  Plut.  Num.  12. 

5  "Quum  omnium  circa  finitimorum  socictate  ac  foederibus  juiixisset 
animos." — Liv.  i.  19. 

^  "  Ut  tamcn,  quoniam  Numa  in  pace  religiones  institiiisset,  a  se  bellicai 
cserimonia?  proderentur  ;  nee  gererentur  solum,  sed  ctiam  indicerentur  bella 
aliquo  ritu  ;  jus  ab  antiqua  gente  iEquicolis,  quod  nunc  fetiales  liabent, 
descripsit,  quo  res  repetuntur." — Lib.  i.  32. 


IGO 


IIISTOKY    OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


histor}^  of  Rome,  both  affirm  that  it  was  founded  by  Ximia.^  Some 
nameless  writers,  indeed,  without  consulting  any  evidence,  inferred 
merely  from  the  presumption  that,  as  Eomulus  was  reputed  to 
have  sprung  from  iVlba,  and  as  the  worsliip  of  Vesta  was  established 
there,  he  must  have  introduced  it  at  Rome ;  but  Dionysius,  who 
appears  to  have  examined  this  question  with  more  than  usual 
diligence,  calls  their  writings  empty  and  foolish.-  And  he  adduces 
as  a  conclusive  argument  against  them  the  situation  of  the  Temple 
of  Vesta  ;  which  stood  not  within  the  walls  of  Roma  Quadrata,  or 
the  original  Romulcan  city,  and  could  not,  therefore,  have  been 
founded  by  Romulus.  Xo  argument,  then,  can  be  adduced  against 
the  credit  of  the  history  from  such  a  variation  as  this,  which  is  no 
real  one  ;  any  more  than  it  would  be  an  argument  against  the  truth 
of  English  history,  if  some  silly  writer  should  deny  the  N^orman 
Conquest. 

The  difference  about  the  augurs  being  instituted  by  Romulus  or 
]N^uma  arose,  as  we  have  already  shown,  merely  from  a  misappre- 
hension of  terms.     There  were  no   doubt  augurs  in  the  time  of 
Romulus ;  but  it  was  Xuma  who  first  formed  them  into  a  college, 
or  priesthood.     The  same  answer  may  be  made  to   the  objection 
about  Quirinus.     Tatius  may  have  consecrated  an  altar  to  him  as 
an  old  Sabine  deity ;  -^  yet  it  was  !N"uma  who  first  made  his  worship 
a  more  regular  service,  dedicated  a  temple  to  him  {aedes  Quirini)^ 
and  appointed  a  Flamen  Quirinalis.     How  Romulus  came  to  be 
identified  with  Quirinus  is  quite  another  question,  and  involves  a 
mystery  to  which  we  have  no  clue.     But  there  is  no  difference  of 
opinion  on  this  point  \   all  the  authorities  are  unanimous.     And 
perhaps  it  may  have  arisen  from  Romulus  being  reputed  the  son  of 
Mars.      Terminus  also   may  be   placed  in  the  same  category  as 
Quirinus.     It  was  only  an  altar,  as  Varro  tells  us   (Zoc.  cit.)^  that 
Tatius  dedicated  to  this  deity ;  and,  with  several  more  vowed  by 
that  monarch,  it  was  on  the  Capitoline  Hill.     But  when  it  was  to 
have  been  exaugurated,  in  order  to  make  room  for  the  Capitoline 
Temple,  we  find  that  it  was  something  more  than  an  altar ;  it  was 
then  a  famim.^   '^ow  fanes ^  Varro  tells  us,^  must  be  consecrated  by 
the  Pontifices,  and  in  the  reign  of  Tatius  there  were  no  Pontifices. 

1  Cic.  De  Kep.  ii.  14  ;  Liv.  i.  20. 

2  vTTtp   uv  oi  ras  alrias   ovk   e^rjraKOTiS   /caXojy,    ilKaior4pa<i    l^-qviyKavro   rus 
ypacpds. — Lib.  ii.  64. 

^  Varro,  Ling.  Lat.  v.  74. 


"  Aves  in  Termini  fano  non  addixere. " — Liv.  i.  55. 


^   Ling.  Lat.  vi.  54. 


Am.. 


ry 


CONTRADICTIONS   OF    AUTIIOKS. 


161 


9. 


.*-■ 


•3:- 


\, 


Therefore  Xuma  must  have  made  some  addition  to  the  worship 
of  Terminus,  and,  indeed,  I'lutarch  ^  says  that  he  erected  a  temple 
to  that  deity. 

So,  after  all,  we  find  that  the  charge  against  the  history,  on  ac- 
count of  variation  in  the  traditions  respecting  the  religious  institu- 
tions of  Xuma,  amounts  to  little  or  nothing.  With  regard  to  his 
civil  institutions,  we  find  only  one  author,  Junius  Gracchanus,^ 
who  attributes  the  introduction  of  the  year  of  twelve  months  to 
Tarquinius  Priscus  instead  of  Xuma.  If  Dionysius  has  contradicted 
himself  in  attributing  the  division  of  the  lioman  territory  and  the 
institution  of  pagi  both  to  JSTuma  and  Scrvius  TuUius,  this 
is  no  more  than  what  that  author  frequently  does  ;  and  there  is 
no  such  contradiction  in  the  Latin  sources,  although  Plutarch  also 
attributes  the  ^)<7^i  to  Xuma."  Dionysius  has  here  confounded  the 
Terminalia  with  the  Paganalia.  He  says  that  Xuma  caused  the 
boundaries  of  private  fields  to  be  marked  out  by  termini,  sacred  to 
Jupiter  Terminalis ;  that  he  also  marked  out  the  public  territory 
in  the  same  inanner,  and  instituted  the  festival  of  the  Terminalia. 
And  of  Servius  Tullius  he  says,  that  he  caused  the  Roman  territory 
to  be  divided  into  tribes,  and  instituted  pagi,  or  places  of  refuge 
for  the  rustic  population  in  case  of  hostile  invasion,  with  proper 
magistrates,  and  instituted  the  festival  of  the  Paganalia.*  So  far 
there  is  no  contradiction ;  but  two  chapters  further  on  (ii.  76), 
Dionysius  also  attributes  the  institution  of  the  j)^0^  ^^  Numa. 
Neither  Livy  nor  Cicero  says  that  Numa  instituted  the  trade 
unions  or  guilds,  unless  we  are  to  include  them  under  Cicero's 
general  expressions,  that  he  instituted  markets,  games,  and  all  kinds 
of  occasions  for  the  people  to  meet  together.^  Guilds,  however, 
are  mentioned  as  the  institution  of  Xuma  by  Pliny  and  Plutarch.^ 
Schwegler,  by  way  of  making  a  contradiction,  asserts  that  one 
author— Florus — ascribes  them  to  Servius  Tullius.  But,  in  reality, 
riorus  does  no  such  thing,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  passage  on 
which   this    assertion    is    founded,  which  we  subjoin    in  a  note.' 

^  Num.  c.  16.  2  Ap.  Censorinum,  De  Die  Nat.  c.  20. 

3  Num.  c.  Ifi.  4  Dionys.  ii.  74  ;  iv.  15. 

'^  "Idemque  raercatus,  ludos  omnesque  conveniendi   causas  et  celebritates 
invenit." — De  Rep.  ii.  14. 

6  Plin.  N.  H.  xxxiv.  1,  §  1  ;  xxxv.  46,  §  159  ;  Tlut.  Num.  17. 

7  "  Ab  hoc  (Servio  TulHo)  populus  Romanus  relatus  in  censura,  digestus  in 
classes,  decuriis  atque  collegiis  distributus  :  summaque  regis  soUertia  ita  est 

M 


162 


HISTORY   OF  THE   K1^'GS   OF   HOME. 


Florus  is  describing  the  centuries  instituted  by  Servius ;  and 
by  collegiis  he  only  means — as  indeed  Schwegler  himself  seems  to 
suspect  in  a  note — the  centuries  of  carpenters  and  smiths  attached 
to  the  army,  and  not  such  trades  as  potters,  or  dyers,  or  goldsmiths, 
who  would  have  been  of  no  use  in  war. 

And  thus  the  accounts  of  Numa's  civil  institutions  are  not  more 
contradictory  than  those  of  his  religious  institutions. 

<t  Tf  YTo  gnl-tfrapf^"  continucs  Schwcfflcr,  "from  the  traditional 
history  of  Xuma,  which  almost  wnoiiy  consists  of  ail  enume- 
ratioii  of  his  religious  and  civil  regulations,  aU  those  worships  and 
institutions  which  he  cannot  have  founded,  since  t'Ee\^  existed 
before  hi~  timr^  fin  wnH  nn  thoio  rogu]nti'nn«  ^yh^'^h  tradition  has 
ascribed  to  him  merely  from  combination  and  inference,  there  re- 
mains  nothing  but  the  abstmi^t  id  pa.  ^f  a  religious' founder ;  and 

even    this    idea    of    the    S^fnpd    l.:in^or    is    imdnnhtp.dly    (}i 


m; 

origin." 

The  main  gist  of  this  paragraph  has  been  already  answered,  by 
showing  that  there  are  not  many  institutions  that  can  be  fairly  ab- 
judicated from  him.  But  we  do  not  see,  even  if  we  should  de- 
prive him  of  the  greater  part  of  them,  hoAv  it  follows  that  nothing 
would  remain  but  "  an  abstract  idea."  And  to  ascribe  this  abstract 
idea  to  a  myth  seems  to  be  to  assign  two  origins  for  it  that  are 
wholly  incompatible. 

" In  its  other  traits  also,"  Schwegler  proceeds  to  say,  "the  tra- 
dition  of  King  Xurna  proves  itselt  a  tictiou.  An  unbro'^en  peace 
of  forty-three  years,  which  no  neighbouring  people  ventures  to 
break,"^ut  of  reverence  for  the  godly  rei^n_of  so  pious  and^'Just  a 

'king — such  a  perinrl  r>f  pp^pp.  nnd  nrtdic^|,^^jbfir|  pqnity  is  a  bcautiful 

dream,  but  no  history.  It  is  the  more  incredible  in  that  age  of 
violence, it  IS'uma  was  really  the  successor  of  the  wariiKe  ana  con- 
qTjehl-luvilig  Rom  til  lis.  JN  uma's  marriage  with  Egeria  justifies  the 
same  conclusion  ;  a  trait  which  alone  sufficiently  proves  tliat  Ihis 
porffOn  oi  liomaii  history  is  still  half  mythology,  and  not  real  Jiis- 
tQry» -Jlhfi. person  of  "Numa  is  no  more  liistorical  than  that  of  his 
consort  Egeria." 

There~is  a  difference  about  the  length  of  Duma's  reign.  Some 
authors  place  it  at  forty-three  years,  some  at  thirty-nine ;  and  if 

ordinata  respublica,  lit  omnia  patrimonii,  dignitatis,  setatis,  artium,  officio- 
nimque  discrimina  in  tabulas  referrentur,  ac  sic  maxima  ci vitas  minimae 
domusdiligeutia  contineretur." — Lib.  i.  c.  6,  s.  3. 


■Ha 


PEACEFUL   REIGN    OF   NUMA. 


163 


.-V 


it  «>' 

V'-'  ■ 

'Sfi  . 


these  sums  be  reduced  by  one- sixth,  they  will  be  respectively 
thirty-six  and  thirty-three.  And  we  are  of  opinion  that  even  then 
the  length  of  it  may  have  been  exaggerated. 

That  a  peaceable  sovereign  may  have  remained  at  peace  for  some 
thfrtyyears  does  not  seem  impossible,  nor  even  highly  improbable. 
The[Roman§^mc^^  careful  to 

choose  for  his  Sabine  successor  an  imwarlike  monarch,  a  sort  of 
'Eng  Xog,  who  they  knew  would  employ  himself  in  pottering 
about  his  priests  and  altars.  James  IT.  reigned  twenty-two  years 
without  going  to  war,  though  he  had  much  to  provoke  him  to  it. 
The  situation  of  Eome  at  Numa's  accession  was,  as  Livy  tells  us, 
favourable  to  peace.  The  warlike  prowess  of  the  Romans  had 
mSde'X^trong  impression  on  their  neighbours.  Veii  had  been 
f^ducedto'beg  a  peace,  w^hich  was  to  last  one"^  hundred  years,  or 
eighty-T.hYee  astronomical  years.  The  Sabines,  the  most  dangerous 
neighbours  of  the  Romans,  seeing  a  portion  of  their  own  race 
established  at  Rome,  under  a  Sabine  king,  would  not  have  been 
inclined  to  initiate  a  war  against  her.  This  motive  continued  to 
operate  with  them  even  as  late  as  the  reign  of  Tullus  Hostilius,  with 
whom  they  chose  not  to  go  to  war  till  they  had  secured  foreign 
aid,  as  Tatius  had  planted  part  of  their  own  force  at  Rome.^  The 
Latins  might  even  have  regarded  the  rising  city  with  satisfaction,  as 
a  bulwark  interposed  between  them  and  the  Etruscans.  The  fear 
which  the  Latins  entertained  of  the  Etruscans  is  shown  by  the 
speech  of  the  Alban  Dictator,  Euffetius,  to  the  Roman  king,  TuUus 
Hostilius,  previously  to  the  treaty  respecting  the  issue  of  the 
combat  between  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii ;  and  the  proposal  that  the 
two  cities  should  be  amalgamated  rather  than  exposed  to  an  attack 
from  that  quarter.^  And  jN'uma  strengthened  all  these  favourable 
conditions  at  his  accession  by  concluding  treaties  with  the  sur- 
rounding cities.^ 

The  fable  of  Egeria  does  not  invalidate  the  personality  of  Numa. 
Such~supernatural  beings  were  in  accordance  with  the  belief  of  the 
acre  ;  th^irotion  of  his  commerce  with  the  gods  would  lend  autho- 
rity  to  his  holy  _ institutions ;  and  it  was  with  this  view,  we  are 

1  "  Sabini,  hand  parum  memores  et  suarum  virium  partem  Romae  ab  Tatio 
locatam,  et  Romanam  rem  nuper  etiam  adjectione  populi  Albani  auctam,  cir- 
cumspicere  et  ipsi  externa  auxilia." — Liv.  i.  30. 

2  Liv.  i.  23. 

3  "  Quum    omnium  circa   finitimorum    societate    ac    foederibus    juniissct 

animos."— Liv.  i.  19. 

m2 


164 


inSTOPiY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


AKGUMENT   FKOxM   THE   LUDI   S^CULAIIES. 


105 


told,  that  the  fahle  was  invented.  So,  as  Schwegler  himself  tells 
lis'  further~~on,  IMinos  'received  his  laws  from  Zeus  in  a  cave, 
Lyciirgus  his  from  the  Delphic  god,  and  Pythagoras  his  precepts 
from  the  Delphic  priestess  Themistocleia.  If  we  reject  the  history 
on  this  account,  we  might  on  the  same  grounds  reject  the  greater 
part  of  all  ancient  history,  and  especially  of  all  lioman  history. 
Down  to  a  late  period  the  affairs  of  the  Romans  were  directed,  or 
supposed  to  be  directed,  by  the  visible  interposition  of  the  gods,  as 
manifested  by  augury  and  other  means. 

It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that  the  reign  of  IS'uma  is 
nrore"  shadowj  and  unsubstantial  than  those  of  the  other  Eoman 
gSvereigns.  It  seems  probable  that  this  characteristic  may  be  due  to 
ttre'fa'ct^hat  the  priests  were  the  historiographers  of  Eome.  They 
Have  no  doubt  exaggerated  the  virtues  and  concealed  the  defects  of 
their  founder,  and  have  endeavoured  to  represent  him  rather  as  a 
Tawgiver  sent  hy  heaven,  than  as  an  ordinary  prince  ruling  by  the 
dictates  of  worldly  policy.  But,  though  a  halo  may  be  thus  flung 
around  him,  we  do  not  think  that  it  conceals  his  real  personality,  or 
invalidates  the  fact  that  the  greater  part  of  the  institutions  ascribed 
to  him  were  really  his. 

"  That  the  reigns  of  the  first  two  kings,"  continues  Schwegler, 
''  form  a  peculiar  order  of  things  quite  distinct  from  the  later  history, 
is  shown  in  a  certain  manner  by  tradition,  which  makes  the  first 
sseculum  of  the  city  end  with  the  death  of  Kuma.  The  first 
secular  festival  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings  was  celebrated,  ac- 
cording to  the  minutes  of  the  Quindecemviri,  in  A.U.C.  298.  If 
from  this  point  we  reckon  back  the  specula  at  110  years  ^  each, 
then  the  beginning  of  the  second  sseculum  is  a.u.c.  78  ;  and  this 
year  was,  according  to  Polybius  and  Cicero,  the  first  year  after 
]S'uma's  death  ;  viz.  Romulus  37  years.  Interregnum  1  year,  IS^uma 
39  years  =  77  years.  Consequently,  the  year  of  Is^uma's  death  was 
the  last  year  of  the  first  speculum.  The  old  tradition,  that  T^uma 
was  born  on  the  day  of  Rome's  foundation,  has  the  same  meaning. 
For,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Etruscan  Rituals,  the  first 
soeculum  of  a  city  ended  with  the  death  of  him  who,  of  all  that 
were  born  on  the  day  of  its  foundation,  had  attained  the  greatest 
age.  Thus  iNuma's  death  forms,  as  this  tradition  seems  to  point 
out,  the  boundary  between  two  epochs.     And,  in  truth,  with  his 

1  As  they  are  given  by  Censorinus,  De  Die  Nat.  c.  17 ;  and  also  by  Horace, 
Carm.  Sec. 


i 


^i'-. 


i/ 


\'S: 


I 


i  ^ 


death  the  purely  mythical  period  of  Rome  expired,  and  the  half- 
historical  period,  the  dawn  of  history,  begins ;  while  on  the  oth(^r 
hand  the  first  two  kings— the  one  the  son  of  a  god,  the  other  the 
husband  of  a  goddess— evidently  belong  to  a  different  order  of  the 
world  than  the  common  one." 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  examine  this  paragraph  in  the 
Introductory  Dissertation,  and  need   not   therefore  dwell  upon  it 
here.     The  calculation  is  Niebuhr's,^  and  is  founded,  as  we  have 
shown,  on  a  misinterpretation,  as  well  as  a  very  palpable  mistrans- 
lation, of  Censorinus.     The  story  of  Niimas  having  been  born  on 
the  day  Rome  was  founded,  as  asserted  by  Plutarch  and  accepted 
by  IS'iebuhr  and  Schwegler,  is  doubtless  a  fable  ;  ^   and  all  this 
ingenious  calculation  falls  to  the  ground  when  it  is  considered  that 
the  Romulean  year  consisted  of  ten  months,  that  Xuma  therefore, 
if  born  as  stated,   was  thirty-two   years  old  when  he  began  to 
reign,  and  consequently,  even  if  we  take  the  years  of  his  reign  as 
astronomical  years,  was  only  seventy-one  at  the  time  of  his  death. 
And  if  it  should  be  said  that  the  year  of  ten  months  is  to  be 
carried  on  beyond  the  reign  of  Romulus,  and  beyond  the  cele- 
bration of  the  games  in  a.u.c.    298,  which  we  willingly  accept, 
then  we  further  remark  that  no  calculation  at  all  can  be  founded 
on   the    Ludi    Sreculares,    which,    in    spite    of    their   name,    were 
celebrated  at  very  irregular  intervals. 

And  thus,  too,  the  ingenious  surmise  that  tradition  pointed  to 
]S"uma's  death  as  forming  the  boundary  between  two  epochs,  also 
falls  to  the  ground.  Though  so  far  we  agree  with  Schwegler,  that 
after  this  period  tradition  became  more  steady,  as  being  supported 
by  contemporari/  record. 

We  need  not  enter  into  Schwegler's  seventh  section,  which  con,- 
cerns  :N'uma's  intercourse  with  Egeria  ;  a  subject  on  which  we  have 
already  said  enough,  and  on  which  no  new  light  is  here  thrown,  so 
far  as  the  credibility  or  incredibility  of  the  history  is  concerned. 

In  the  following  section  Schwegler  says  :  "  The  old  tradition  made 
Xuma  the  disciple  of  Pythagoras.     That,  for  chronological  reasons, 

1  Horn.  Gescli.  i.  254,  ff. 

2  Dionysiiis  (ii.  58)  says  that  he  was  not  far  from  forty  when  elected,  which 
would  throw  his  birth  a  year  or  two  before  the  foundation  of  Rome,  even  on 
the  received  calculation.  The  same  author  says  (ii.  76)  that  he  lived  eighty 
years  and  reigned  forty-three,  which  would  make  him  tliirty-seven  at  his  acces- 
sion, ayear  sliort  of  the  age  of  Rome.  Livy  (i.  21)  also  gives  his  reign  at  forty- 
three  years;  and  he  would,  therefore,  have  died  in  the  year  of  Rome  81. 


166 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


NUxMA   AND    PYTHAGORAS. 


1G7 


tills  could  not  have  been  so,  was  no  secret  to  the  later  Romans  ;  we 
can  therefore  only  ask,  how  the  existence  of  this  tradition  is  to  be 

explained  ] " 

Schwegler  then  devotes  four  or  five  pages  to  this  explanation  ; 
into  which,  however,  w^e  shall  not  follow  him,  as  it  seems  to  be  a 
mere  waste  of  time  to  seek  conjectural  reasons  for  the  possible 
origin  of  what  is  universally  admitted,  by  ancients  as  well  as 
moderns,  to  have  been  a  mistake. 

The  only  point  worth  noticing  in  this  paragraph  is  that  Schwegler, 
with  the  view  of  course  of  damaging  the  early  history,  attributes 
the  mistake  to  the  ''old  tradition"  ("die  alte  Sage").  In  support 
of  this  assertion,  he  even  misconstrues  Plutarch.  That  author  says  : 
wore  (Tvyyyu)fJ.r]v  t\Ei.v  iroWriv  toIq  eIq  to  avro  IlvOayop^t  No/jdv  (piXo- 


Ti^ovfiivoig  (Tvrayeiy   cvri  Toaavraic,  o/xoLorrjaiv. 


Which  Schwegler 


renders  :  "  One  should  pardon  tradition  if  it  has  brought  ISTuma 
into  personal  relation  with  Pythagoras  "  ("  man  miisse  es  der  Sage 
zu  gut  halten,  wenn  sie  den  ISTuma  in  personliche  Verbindung  mit 
Pythagoras  gebracht  habe") ;  when  Plutarch  only  says,  those  jyeisons 
or  writers  ;  and  he  concludes  the  section  by  saying  that  we  may 
assume  the  tradition  of  Xuma's  Pythagorismus  to  have  arisen 
in  Rome  about  the  time  of  the  Samnite  "War,  or  at  all  events 
before  the  pretended  discovery  of  Numa's  writings  in  a.u.c.  573 
(B.C.  181). 

Before  examining  this  subject,  we  will  insert  what  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis  says  upon  it,  as  follows  i^ — "Owing  to  the  popular  con- 
ception of  him  (Xuma)  as  a  philosopher  and  wise  man,  he  was 
represented  as  the  scholar  of  Pythagoras,  whose  fame  was  doubt- 
less more  widely  spread  in  Italy  than  that  of  Thales  and  other 
ancient  philosophers  of  Greece  and  Asia  Minor.  This  belief  seems 
to  have  been  prevalent  at  Rome  from  an  early  time,  and  was  doubt- 
less recognised  by  Fabius  and  other  ancient  historians.  It  was 
embodied  in  the  forged  books  of  Numa's  religious  laws,  which  were 
brought  forward  as  having  been  found  in  his  tomb  on  the  Jani- 
culum  in  181  b.c.  about  twenty  years  after  the  end  of  the  Second 
Punic  War.  When,  however,  Polybius  and  other  careful  hibtorians 
came  to  compare  the  time  assigned  to  Numa  with  the  date  of 
Pythagoras,  they  perceived  that  the  disciple  must  have  lived  above 
a  century  and  a  half  before  the  master,  and  therefore  that  the  story 
was  false.     The  anachronism  is  as  if  it  were  said  that  James  I. 


H-^,.' 


1  Plut.  Num.  22, 


Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  449,  seqq. 


derived  his  maxims  of  government  from  Adam  Smith,  or  Henry  IV. 
from  Montesquieu.  As  this  legend  could  not  have  arisen  till  the 
age  of  Pythagoras,  and  the  fact  of  his  being  contemporary  with  the 
last  king,  or  with  the  first  years  of  the  Republic,  had  been  forgotten, 
we  can  hardly  suppose  it  to  liave  been  much  earlier  than  the  capture 

of  Rome  by  the  Gauls." 

Now  let  us  remark  the  inconsistencies  of  this  statement.  It 
assumes,  first,  that  the  true  tradition,  that  Pythagoras  was  contem- 
porary with  the  last  King  of  Rome,  who  was  expelled  in  B.C.  510, 
must  have  been  forgotten  before  the  capture  of  Rome  by  the  Gaids, 
which  happened  in  b.c.  390  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  it  must  have 
been  forgotten  in  less  than  120  years.  It  assumes,  secondly,  that 
the /a/sAradition,  which  arose  before  B.C.  390,  must  have  survived 
till  B.C.  181,  when  the  pretended  books  of  Xuma  were  found, — that 
is,  for  a  period  of  more  than  two  centuries  !  The  tradition  was,  of 
course,  according  to  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  view,  oral;  and  the  first 
assumption  is  not  inconsistent  with  his  theory,  that  oral  tradition 
cannot  last  much  more  than  a  century.  But  how  shall  we  reconcile 
the  second  assumption  with  that  theory  which  makes  a  false  tra- 
dition, therefore  an  invention,  and  one  after  all  of  no  great  impor- 
tance to  the  facts  of  Roman  history,  last  more  than  two  centuries  1 

That  the  story  of  Numa's  Pythagorismus  is  an  invention  is 
admitted  m  liH  ^f?nids ;  that  It  Wiit^i  invented  trom~some  real  or 
i?rTTcTen"simiIanly  between  :Suma  and  Pythagoras  we  agree  with 
ScT^^^FSeTa^  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  in  thinking  ;  ^  but  we  do  not  agree 
with  the  h^rst  of  these  writers,  in  placinc;  its  origin  intheSamnite 
War,"  and  still  loss  with  the  second,  in  placing  it  before  the  capture 
^^f-^^;;;^^;  We  think  it  was  of  a  much  more  recent  date,  when 
fi^^VJInr^^.n..  Iin.l  fi^.uiircd  a  tastc  lor  iimax;^L-iiiscussiQh,  and 
that  it  was  probably  invented,  as  it  was  almost  ^ertainly_adopted, 
by  the  first  RomrnrhiKtorfeat  Wlit^rs^Jjibius,  U^^  rest. 

It  is-iw'o^tion  to  tills  view  t^hat  Cicero  makes  Manilius  exclaim, 
^'  Dii  immortales,  quantus  iste  est  hominum  et  quam  inveteratus 
error  !"  For  these  feigned  interlocutors  are  mere  puppets  ;  Cicero 
is  really  speaking  in  his  own  person,  and  as  the  scene  of  the  D<s 
Republicd  is  laid  in  the  Consulship  of  Sempronius  Tuditanus  and 
M.  Aquillius,  in  the  year  B.C.  129,  it  might  still  even  then  be  called 
an  "  inveteratus  error,"  if  it  had  originated  at  the  beginning  of 
that  century.  That  it  was  at  least  adopted  by  the  first  Roman 
I  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  561  ;  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  \x  452,  note  137. 


168 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ELECTION   OF   TULLUS    HOSTILIUS. 


169 


historians  is,  as  we  have  seen,  recognised  by  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  as  a 
matter  beyond  doubt.  The  true  date  of  the  origin  of  the  story  is 
not  of  much  importance,  but  it  could  hardly  have  found  that 
universal  acceptance  among  the  Eomans  which  Cicero  tells  us  it 
did,  ^  unless  it  had  appeared  in  their  written  and  published  histories. 
It  is,  however,  objected  to  the  story,  in  the  same  passage,  that  it 
was  not  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  the  State  Annals,-  by 
which  must  be  meant  the  Annales  Maximi  and  the  Commentarii  - 
Pontificum.  For,  had  Cicero  been  speaking  of  the  works  of  Fabius 
and  his  contemporaries,  he  would  have  called  them  simply  ^w?irt/e5. 
The  words  piiUid  and  audoritate  show  that  he  meant  something 
of  more  weight  than  these  literary  histories. 

And  even  if  it  should  be  contended  that  puhlicus  is  not  here 
to  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense  of  public  or  statCj  but  merely  means 
published,  and  that  Cicero,  in  the  person  of  Manilius,  is  only 
referring  to  the  annals  of  Fabius  and  his  contemporaries ;  still 
even  that  method  shows  that  the  mistake  concerning  Numa's 
Pythagorismus  is  not  to  be  fathered,  with  Schwegler,  on  the 
'^  old  tradition."  For  those  writers,  according  to  this  mode  of 
construing  Cicero,  would  have  mentioned  no  such  story.  \Yhere- 
fore,  in  this  view  of  the  matter,  it  must  have  been  a  very  recent 
invention ;  and  the  attacks  of  Schwegler  and  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  on 
the  early  history  on  account  of  it  fall  therefore  utterly  harmless. 

Schwegler's  ninth  and  concluding  section  of  this  book  is  occupied 
with  relating  and  discussing  the  discovery  of  the  reputed  books  of 
Xuma  in  the  grounds  of  the  scribe  Petillius  on  the  Janiculum.  As 
these  books  were  undoubted  forgeries,  and  as  they  were  publicly 
burnt  by  order  of  the  Senate,  it  is  impossible  that  they  should 
throw  any  light  on  the  history  of  Numa ;  and  therefore  we  may 
be  excused  from  following  Schwegler  into  this  subject.  We  shall 
only  observe  that  his  assertion  that  none  of  the  Roman  historians 
expresses  any  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  the  books,  is  hardly  true  ; 
since  Livy,  in  a  passage  which  Schwegler  himself  quotes,  by  men- 
tioning that  the  books  had  the  appearance  of  being  quite  new,  ^ 
virtually  implies,  if  he   does  not  actually  state,  that  they  were 

1  "Et  ita  intelligimus  vulgo  existimari." — De  Rep.  ii.  15. 

2  "K"eqiie  vero  satis  id  anualium  publicoriim  aiictoritate  declaratum  vide- 
mus." — Ibid,  We  have  examined  the  chronological  question  in  the  Intro- 
duction. 

"^  "Non  integi'os  modo  sed  recentissima  specie." — Lih.  xl.  29. 


forgeries.  And  though  Petersen,  in  his  Dissertatio  de  origine  His- 
torice  Romance,  may  claim  them  as  genuine,  yet  we  abandon  them 
altogether,  notwithstanding  that  their  genuineness  would  have 
established  at  once  the  personality  of  Xuma,  as  well  as  that  he 
was  the  founder  of  the  Pontifical  law.  At  the  same  time  we  cannot 
admit  the  validity  of  one  of  Schwegler's  reasons  for  rejecting  them  ; 
namely,  that  writing  was  not  practised  at  Rome  in  the  time  of 
Xuma.  We  have  endeavoured  to  show  in  the  Introduction  that 
sucli  an  assumption  is  contrary  to  all  evidence.  But  we  will  allow 
that  the  writing  would  have  been  of  a  character  so  antique  as  not 
to  have  been  so  easily  read  as  these  pretended  books  are  said  to 
have  been ;  but  rather  it  must  have  resembled  that  of  the  treaty 
between  Rome  and  Carthage  in  the  first  year  of  the  Republic, 
which  the  most  learned  of  the  Romans  in  the  time  of  Polybius 
could  hardly  make  out. 

We  will  now  resume  the  history. 


SECTION  VI. 

TULLUS   HOSTILIUS. — THE   ALBAN   WAR. 

On  the  death  of  Numa,  there  was  another  interregnum  till 
the  people  elected  Tullus  Hostilius  king ;  a  choice  that  was 
ratified  by  the   Senate.     Tullus  was   the   grandson   of  that 
Hostilius  who  had  fought  so  bravely  against  the  Sabines  at 
the  foot  of  the  citadel.     He  was  not  only  unlike  his  pre- 
decessor in  temper,  he  was  even  more  ferocious  than  Romulus. 
His  youthful  age,  his  strength  of  body,  the  warlike  fame  of 
his  ancestor,   all   stimulated   him  to   deeds    of  glory.     The 
peaceful  state  of  the  city  seemed  to  him  to  resemble  the 
decay  of  old  age,  and  he  therefore  looked  about  on  all  sides 
for  some  occasion  of  war.     Now,  it  happened  that  the  Roman 
peasants  were  at  that  time  accustomed  to  make  depredations 
on  the  Alban  territory,  and  those  of  Alba,  in  their  turn,  on  the 
Roman.    C.  Cluilius  then  reigned  at  Alba ;  and  in  this  state 
of  things,  it  occurred  that  ambassadors  were  despatched  on 


V 


170 


HISTOKY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


WAR   WITH   ALBA. 


both  sides,  at  about  tlie  same  time,  to  demand  restoration  of 
the  booty  made.  TuUiis  had  instructed  those  whom  he  sent 
to  lose  no  time  in  making  their  demands,  judging  that  the 
Alban  sovereign  would  surely  refuse  them,  and  that  he  might 
thus  declare  war  without  offending  against  the  divine  laws. 
The  Albans  managed  the  affair  more  leisurely.  Tullus  suc- 
ceeded in  entertaining  and  amusing  them ;  and  it  was  not  till 
he  had  ascertained  that  his  own  ambassadors  had  declared 
war  against  Alba,  to  commence  in  thirty  days,  that  he  granted 
the  Alban  envoys  an  audience  for  business.  No  sooner  had 
they  explained  their  mission,  than  Tullus  (in  the  manner  of 
the  first  Bonaparte)  upbraided  them  with  the  dismissal  of  the 
Eoman  ambassadors  from  Alba,  and  called  the  gods  to  witness 
that  on  the  heads  of  those  who  had  first  taken  this  step  would 
be  all  the  slaughter  and  calamities  of  the  war. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  what  may  almost  be  called  a  civil 
war,  waged  between  parents  and  children,  since  both  peoples 
traced  their  origin  to  Lavinium.  Each  side  entered  on  it 
with  the  greatest  ardour  and  most  elaborate  preparations.  It 
turned  out,  however,  less  deplorable  than  might  have  been 
anticipated,  since  it  was  concluded  without  any  pitched  battle ; 
and  though  one  of  the  cities  was  ultimately  razed,  yet  this 
calamity  was  compensated  by  the  amalgamation  of  the  two 
peoples.  The  Albans  first  took  the  field.  They  invaded  the 
Eoman  territory  with  a  large  army,  pitched  their  camp  only 
five  miles  from  Eome,  and  surrounded  it  with  a  fosse,  or  ditch, 
which,  during  many  centuries,  was  called  Fossa  Cluilia,  after 
the  Alban  leader ;  but,  in  time,  both  ditch  and  name  have 
disappeared,  and  are  forgotten.  Wliilst  the  Alban  army  was 
encamped  here,  Cluilius  suddenly  died ;  upon  which  the  Albans 
created  Mettius  Fuffetius  their  dictator.  This  event  augmented 
the  courage  and  ferocity  of  Tullus.  He  gave  out  that  the 
gods,  havinc{  besun  with  the  leader  of  the  Albans,  would  take 
vengeance  on  the  whole  race  for  this  iniquitous  war;  and, 
marching  out  in  the  night,  and  passing  by  the  enemy's  camp, 
he  proceeded  into  the  Alban  territory,  laying  it  waste  as  he 
advanced.  This  proceeding  induced  Mettius  to  leave  his  camp. 
He  led  his  army  as  near  to  the  enemy  as  he  could,  and  then 


ttff  -J 


171 


sent  an  envoy  to  Tullus  to  demand  a  conference,  in  which,  he 
said,  he  was  certain  that  he  could  communicate  matters  of  no 
less  importance  to  Eome  than  to  Alba.  He  appears  to  have 
learnt  that  the  Veientines  and  Fidenates  had  combined  to 
attack  both  Eomans  and  Albans  whilst  they  were  destroying 
one  another ;  and  some  authors  say  ^  that  the  same  piece  of 
intelligence  had  also  reached  Tullus.  However  this  may  be, 
the  proposal  was  not  rejected  by  the  Eoman  king.  The  two 
armies  were  drawn  up  in  line  confronting  each  other,  and 
both  leaders,  accompanied  by  a  few  of  their  principal  officers, 
proceeded  into  the  space  between.  Here  the  Alban  leader 
candidly  confessed  that  though  the  refusal  to  restore  plun- 
dered goods,  as  they  ought  to  have  been  restored,  according 
to  a  treaty  made  between  the  two  cities  in  the  reign  of 
Eomulus,  served  as  a  pretext  for  this  war  between  two  cognate 
and  neighbouring  peoples,  yet  there  could  be  no  doubt  that 
the  lust  of  empire  was  the  real  cause  of  it  on  both  sides.  He 
then  pointed  out — what  indeed  was  well  known  to  the  Eomans 
— the  great  power  of  the  Etruscans,  both  on  land  and  still  more 
at  sea ;  and  affirmed  that  they  were  only  awaiting  the  result 
of  this  battle  to  attack  both  the  conquierors  and  the  conquered 
— an  assertion  which  he  seems  to  have  proved  by  producing 
letters.  He  then  proceeded  to  advise  the  adoption  of  some 
method  by  w^hich  the  dispute  whether  Alba  or  Eome  should 
enjoy  the  supremacy  might  be  settled  without  much  loss  or 
bloodshed.  To  this  proposal  Tullus  assented,  though  appa- 
rently with  some  reluctance,  as  the  ferocity  of  his  temper  had 
been  still  further  inflamed  with  the  hope  of  victory. 

After  several  proposals  regarding  the  manner  in  which  the 
question  should  be  decided  had  been  discussed  and  rejected, 
it  was  at  length  resolved  to  stake  the  issue  on  the  result  of  a 
combat  between  three  champions  selected  from  each  side. 
It  happened  that  in  both  armies  were  three  brothers,  fairly 
matched  in  ages  and  strength,  each  triplet  the  offspring  of  a 
single  birth.  Their  names  were  the  Horatii  and  the  Curiatii ; 
but  which  were  the  Eoman,  which  the  Alban  champions,  has 

*  Diouy?',  iii.  7. 


172 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


been  a  subject  of  some  doubt,  arising  probably  from  the 
clashing  pretensions  of  those  who  bore  the  same  family  names 
at  a  long  subsequent  period.  Livy,  however,  is  the  only 
author  who  mentions  this  doubt,  and  he  admits  that  the 
oreater  number  of  authorities  state  that  the  lioman  cham- 
pions  were  called  Horatii.  The  young  men  w^ere  easily  per- 
suaded by  the  leaders  on  each  side  to  enter  the  lists,  in  order 
to  decide  by  their  skill  and  valour  w^hether  Rome  or  Alba 
should  be  mistress.  Ihit,  before  the  signal  was  given  for  the 
combat,  a  treaty  w^as  entered  into  between  the  Romans  and 
the  Albans,  to  the  effect  that,  wdiichever  city's  champions 
gained  the  victory,  that  city  should  peaceably  assume  the 
supreme  government  of  both.  However  the  conditions  of 
treaties  may  vary,  yet  they  are  all  concluded  in  the  same 
manner ;  and  as  this  is  the  earliest  treaty  wddch  remains  on 
record,  w^e  shall  take  the  opportunity  to  describe  the  method 
of  it.  The  Fetialis  wdio  acted  on  this  occasion  w^as  M.  Valerius, 
who  had  constituted  Sp.  Fusius  Pater  Patratus,  by  touching 
his  head  and  hair  wdth  verbena.  The  Fetialis  first  put  the 
following  question  to  King  Tullus  :  "  Dost  thou  command  me, 
0  King,  to  make  a  treaty  w4th  the  Pater  Patratus  of  the 
Albans  ? "  And  Tullus  having  given  orders  to  that  effect,  the 
Fetialis  continued :  "  Then  I  demand  of  you,  0  King,  sacred 
herbs."  To  wdiich  the  king  replied :  "  Take  them  fresh  {pu- 
ram)!'  Then  the  Fetialis,  having  brought  some  fresh  grass 
from  the  Capitol,  proceeded  to  interrogate  the  king :  "  Dost 
thou  constitute  me  thy  ambassador,  as  w^ell  as  of  the  Roman 
people  and  Quirites,  sanctioning  also  my  utensils  and  my 
companions  ? "  To  which  the  king  replied :  *'  I  do,  so  far  as  it 
may  be  done  without  detriment  to  myself  and  to  the  Roman 
people  and  Quirites."  Then  the  Pater  Patratus,  wdio  is  con- 
stituted for  the  purpose  of  sanctioning  the  treaty  by  an  oath, 
did  so  by  a  long  formula  in  verse,  which  w^e  need  not  here 
repeat ;  after  which^  having  recited  the  conditions  of  the 
treaty,  he  exclaimed :  "  Hear,  0  Jupiter !  hear  thou,  also, 
Pater  Patratus  of  the  Albans  !  and  ye,  0  Alban  people  !  the 
w^ords  and  conditions,  first  and  last,  which  have  been  recited 
from  those  tablets,  or  wax,  with  perfect  good  faith,  and  as 


THE    HOTJATIl    AND    CUrJATII. 


173 


they  are  this  day  most  clearly  understood,  shall  never  be  first 
violated  by  the  Roman  people.  And  if  it  shall  first  violate 
them  by  solenm  and  public  counsel,  and  with  fraudulent 
intent,  then,  0  Jupiter,  strike  tlie  Roman  people  as  I  shall 
strike  this  swine;  and  strike  it  so  much  the  more,  by  as 
much  as  thou  art  greater  and  more  powerful  than  1."  Where- 
ui>on  he  struck  the  swine  with  a  huge  fiint  stone.  In  like 
manner  the  Albans  performed  their  formularies  and  oaths, 
through  their  dictator  and  priests. 

When  the  treaty  had  been  concluded,  the  combatants  on 
each  side  armed  themselves,  and  ]ux)ceeded  into  the  middle 
space  between  the   two   armies;    wdio,    filled   wdtli  anxiety, 
though  exempt  from  personal  fear,  had  sat  down  before  their 
respective  camps  to  view  a  struggle  in  which  the  prize  of 
empire  depended  on  the  valour  or  the  fortune  of  so  small  a 
number  of   champions.      These,  whose  native   courage  and 
ferocity  had  been  still  further  excited  by  the  exhortations  of 
their  countrymen,  reminding  them  that  their  country  and  its 
oods,  their  fellow-citizens  as  well  as  their  fellows-soldiers,  were 
all  looking  anxiously  for  the  result  of  the  combat,  joined 
battle  at  a  given  signal ;  forgetful  of  their  own  danger  while 
engrossed  by  the  thought  that  public  empire  or  public  servi- 
tude depended  on  their  efforts,  and  that  they  were  now^  to 
decide  the  future  fortunes  of  their  country.     As  their  swords 
flashed  in  the  sun,  and  resounded  on  the  armour  of  their 
adversaries,  a  shudder  ran  through  and  seemed  to  paralyse  the 
spectators,  so  that  they  uttered  not  a  \vord,  and  could  hardly 
draw  their  breath.     The   agitation  increased  as  the  motions 
of  the  combatants,  the  movements  of  their  swords  or  their 
shields,  and  then  the  sight  of  blood  and  w^ounds,  cast  a  doubt 
upon  the  issue.     At  length  two  of  the  Romans  are  seen  to 
fall  amidst  the  exulting  shouts  of  the  Alban  army  ;  but  all 
the  three  Albans  are  w^ounded,  and  breathless  anxiety  per- 
vades the  Roman  host  for  the  fate  of  their  only  remaining 
champion,  now  menaced  by  the  three  Curiatii.     He  chanced 
to  be  unhurt,  and  thus,  though  no  match  for  the  three  Albans 
together,  a  formidable  adversary  for  any  one  of  them  alone. 
In  this  state  of  things  the  Roman  flies,  thinking  that  each 


174 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


-  ft 


TRIAL   OF   IIORATIUS. 


175 


opponent  would  follow  as  his  wounds  permitted ;  and  so  it 
happened.  For  when  he  turned  after  running  a  while,  he 
found  that  one  of  the  Albans  was  close  upon  him,  while  the 
other  two  were  following  at  considerable  intervals.  The  first 
pursuer  is  soon  despatched,  and  Horatius  proceeds  to  meet 
the  second,  encouraged  now  by  the  shouts  of  his  fellow- 
soldiers,  which  w^ere  all  the  louder  and  more  animating  as  hope 
had  succeeded  to  despair.  The  second  Curiatius  is  also  de- 
spatched before  the  third  could  come  to  his  aid,  though  he  was 
not  far  oft'.  The  combatants,  therefore,  are  once  more  equal 
in  point  of  number,  but  quite  unmatched  in  strength  and 
confidence :  the  Roman  unharmed,  exulting  in  a  double 
victory  ;  the  Alban  badly  wounded,  exhausted  by  the  pursuit, 
and  dejected  by  the  slaughter  of  his  brothers.  Then  Horatius, 
exultingly  exclaiming,  "  Two  have  I  despatched  to  satisfy  my 
brothers'  manes :  the  third  I  sacrifice  to  the  cause  of  this 
w^ar,  that  the  Eoman  may  rule  the  Alban ! "  thrust  his  sword 
downw^ards  into  his  opponent's  throat,  who  had  no  longer 
strength  to  lift  his  arms  in  self-defence.  Having  achieved 
this  victory,  Horatius,  after  despoiling  his  adversary,  hastens 
to  join  his  fellow- soldiers,  by  whom  he  is  received  with  extra- 
vagant joy ;  and  both  sides,  agitated  by  the  most  opposite 
feelings,  proceed  to  bury  their  dead  at  the  spots  where  the 
combatants  fell.  The  tombs  of  the  two  Eomans  are  close 
together,  in  the  direction  of  Alba,  while  those  of  the  Albans 
are  in  the  direction  of  Rome,  with  intervals  between  them. 

Before  the  armies  and  their  two  leaders  separated,  Mettius 
asked  King  Tullus  whether,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the 
treaty,  he  had  any  commands  to  give  ;  when  Tullus  instructed 
him  to  keep  the  Alban  youth  under  arms,  as  he  should  want 
their  assistance  in  case  of  a  war  with  the  Veientines.  Then 
both  armies  inarched  homewards,  Horatius  in  front  of  the 
Romans,  bearing  before  him  the  threefold  spoils  which  he  had 
won.  As  they  drew  near  the  city,  his  sister,  who  had  been 
betrothed  to  one  of  the  Curiatii,  came  forth  to  meet  him ; 
and  when  she  beheld  on  her  brother's  shoulders  the  military 
robe  of  her  affianced  husband,  which  she  had  worked  with 
her  own  hands,  she  tore  her  hair,  and  with  sobs  and  lamenta- 


■f  Vt? 


tions  invoked  the  name  of  her  slain  lover.  This  distress,  so 
inopportune  in  a  great  public  rejoicing  and  his  own  glorious 
victory,  enraged  the  youth  to  such  a  degn^ee  that,  drawing  his 
sword,  he  stabbed  his  sister  to  the  heart,  at  the  same  time 
exclaiming,  "  Begone  with  thy  preposterous  love,  forgetful 
alike  of  tliy  country,  of  thy  dead  brothers  and  thy  living 
one.  Such  be  the  fate  of  her  who  shall  lament  an  enemy 
of  Rome ! " 

The  deed  appeared  horrible  both  to  patricians  and  j)le- 
beians;  and  though  it  w^as  in  a  manner  sheltered  by  the 
recent  deserts  of  Horatixis,  yet  he  was  brought  before  the 
king  to  be  tried.  Tullus,  in  order  to  avoid  giving  so  melan- 
choly a  judgment,  which  WTjuld  necessarily  be  unpalatable 
to  the  pox)ulace,  and  pronouncing  the  punishment  which 
must  follow  it,  called  a  council  of  the  people,  and  addressing 
them  said  that  he  had  appointed  duumvirs  according  to  law, 
to  try  Horatius  as  a  criminal  against  the  state.  The  law  was 
of  dreadful  tenor:  "Let  duumvirs  judge  the  crime  of  high 
treason.  If  the  accused  should  appeal  from  the  duumvirs, 
let  the  appeal  be  heard;  if  the  verdict  of  the  duumvirs  is 
confirmed,  let  him  be  hanged  with  a  rope  from  a  gibbet,  wdth 
his  head  veiled,  and  let  him  be  scourged  either  within  or 
without  the  pomoerium."  The  duumvirs  created  under  this 
law,  thinking  that  according  to  its  tenor  tliey  could  not 
acquit  even  an  innocent  person,  condemned  him;  and  one 
of  them  said :  "  Publius  Horatius,  I  find  you  guilty  of  high 
treason.  Lictor,  handcuff  him."  Tlie  lictor  was  about  to 
perform  this  office,  when  Horatius,  at  the  suggestion  of 
Tullus,  who  interpreted  the  law  mercifully,  exclaimed :  "  I 
appeal."     And  so  the  appeal  w^as  referred  to  the  people. 

In  that  solemn  judgment  the  minds  of  men  were  chiefly 
swayed  by  the  father  of  Horatius  proclaiming  that  he  thought 
his  daughter  had  been  lawfully  killed ;  that  if  such  had  not 
been  his  opinion,  he  would  have  punished  his  son  by  his  own 
paternal  authority.  And  then  he  implored  the  people  not  to 
render  completely  childless  one  whom  they  had  seen  only  a 
little  before  at  the  head  of  so  fine  a  family.  And  while  he 
uttered  these  words  he  embraced  his  son;  and  pointing  to 


176 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF  KOMK. 


DAWN  OF  KOMAN   HISTORY. 


177 


the  spoils  of  tlie  Curiatli  displayed  at  tlie  place  now  called 
Pila  Horatia,  he  proceeded  to  exclaim  :  "  Will  you  bear  to 
see,  Quirites,  this  man  scourged  and  tormented  under  the 
gallows,  whom  only  just  now  you  beheld  adorned  with 
triumphal  spoils,  and  rejoicing  in  his  victory  ?  The  eyes  of 
the  Albans  themselves  could  hardly  endure  so  sad  a  spectacle. 
Go,  lictor,  bind  the  hands  which  but  just  now  achieved 
empire  for  the  Eonian  people.  Go,  veil  the  head  of  the 
deliverer  of  this  city ;  suspend  him  on  the  gallows-tree ;  go, 
scourge  Inm  within  the  pomoerium,  only  let  it  be  among 
the  spoils  and  arms  of  the  enemies  whom  he  has  slain;  or 
without  the  pomoerium,  among  the  sepulchres  of  the  Curiatii. 
For  whither  can  you  lead  this  youth  where  his  glorious  deeds 
will  not  vindicate  him  from  the  foul  disgrace  of  such  a 
punishment  ? " 

The  people  could  not  resist  either  the  tears  of  the  father  or 
the  courage  of  the  youth,  whose  bearing  remained  unchanged 
in  that  extremity  of  danger ;  and  they  acquitted  him  more 
from  admiration  of  his  valour  than  from  the  justice  of  his 
cause.  Yet,  in  order  that  a  manifest  murder  should  have 
some  atonement,  the  father  was  directed  to  expiate  his  son  at 
the  public  expense.  Horatius,  therefore,  after  making  some 
piacular  sacrifices,  which  became  hereditary  in  that  family, 
erected  a  beam  across  the  street,  and  made  his  son  pass  under 
it,  with  his  head  veiled.  This  beam,  called  the  Sororium 
Tigillum,  exists  to  the  present  day,  being  constantly  repaired 
at  the  public  expense.  The  tomb  of  Horatia,  constructed  of 
solid  masonry,  may  also  be  seen,  at  the  spot  where  she  was 
killed. 

Eemarks.— On  this  epoch,  Schwegler  remarks:^  ''The  day  of 
Roman  history  begins  to  dawn  with  Tullus  HostiHus.  The  two 
kings  before  him  are  purely  fictitious  ;  Romulus  is  a  god  and  a  son 
of  a  god  ;  :N'uma,  a  mortal,  indeed,  but  married  to  a  goddess.  There 
is  nothing  of  this  mythical  character  in  the  person  of  Tullus  Hos- 
tilius,  and  there  is  no  reason  that  compels  us  to  deny  that  a  king  of 
this  name  may  at  some  time  or  other  have  reigned  at  Rome. 

^  Bueh.  xii.  §  9. 


p. 


«■    -'/ft  w 


f't^-^ 


%.', 


^1- 


"  Still  we  are  far  short  of  the  assumption  that  with  the  third  king 
we  have  reached  the  ground  of  authentic  and  credible  tradition, 
and  have  from  this  date  a  genuine  history,  unmixed  with  false- 
hood. General  probability  would  be  against  such  an  assumption, 
since  a  completely  historical  age  does  not  immediately  follow  a 
mythical  age.  It  is  also  opposed  by  the  following  consideration  : 
the  oldest  historical  records  made  in  Rome  were  annalistic ;  and 
Roman  history  bears  this  annalistic  and  chronicle-like  character 
from  the  time  when  it  becomes  purely  historical,  or  from  about  the 
period  of  the  first  secession.  The  traditional  history  of  the  regal 
times,  on  the  contrary,  is  not  found  in  the  form  of  annals ;  while, 
as  we  have  before  shown,  it  is  filled  with  so  many  contradictions  of 
fact  and  chronology  as  to  exclude  all  possibility  of  contemporary 
annalistic  record.  Consequently,  it  must  proceed  not  from  w^ritten, 
but  only  from  oral,  tradition.  But,  a  history  w^hose  source  is  oral 
tradition  alone,  or  popular  legend,  cannot  pass  for  genuine  and 
testified  history ;  and  the  less  so  in  proportion  as  the  interval  is 
greater  between  the  event  related  and  the  Avritten  record  of  it. 
Even  the  history  of  the  last  two  kings  is  shown  by  a  near  examina- 
tion to  be  altogether  legendary.  How  great,  for  instance,  is  the 
contradiction  in  the  accounts  of  the  origin  of  Servius  Tullius  ? 
How  full  of  fiction  the  history  of  the  last  Tarquin  ?  We  must 
conclude,  hence,  that  what  is  still  earlier  must  be  much  less  trust- 
worthy. 

"  The  history  of  the  last  five  kings  thus  stands  in  the  period  of 
transition  from  the  mythical  to  the  historical  time ;  and  this  epoch 
of  Roman  history  may  be  called  the  mytho-historical.  A  kind  of 
history  now  begins ;  the  events  henceforth  related  are  for  the  most 
part  not  invention,  nor  miracles;  their  foundation  is  mostly  his- 
torical ;  but  we  have  not  sufficient  certainty  respecting  any  one  of 
these  events,  whether  it  is  placed  in  the  right  light,  or  in  the  right 
sequel  of  causes ;  whether  it  is  not  arbitrarily  altered  by  popular 
tradition,  and  inserted  in  the  wrong  place.  The  destruction  of 
Alba  Longa,  for  example,  and  the  settlement  of  the  homeless 
Albans  at  Rome,  are  without  doubt  historical  events ;  but  the 
manner  in  which  they  are  connected  with  the  third  Roman  king  is 
probably  fictitious.  So  also  the  wars  waged  by  Ancus  Marcius 
with  the  surroimding  Latin  cities  are  in  their  general  traits  cer- 
tainly historical ;  they  have  evidently  quite  a  different  character 
from  the  campaigns  of  Romulus  against   Cajnina,  Crustumerium, 

N 


•k- 


178 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   ROME. 


.4" 


COMMENCEMENT   OF   RECORD. 


179 


and  Fidenaj :  but  there  is  good  ground  for  doubting  whether  they 
are  to  be  ascribed  entirely  to  the  foiu'th  Koman  king  ',  and  how 
much  of  the  details  with  which  they  are  related  may  be  historical 
must  at  least  be  left  undetermined.  The  separation  of  the  his- 
torical and  unhistorical  in  this  epoch  is  very  difficult,  often  impos- 
sible, and,  for  the  most  part,  a  matter  for  individual  subjective 
determination ;  but  that  tliis  is  so,  that  conjectures  and  hypotheses 
widely  differ,  is,  of  course,  no  ground  for  assuming  the  historical 
nature  and  complete  credibility  of  the  common  tradition." 

On  this  we  shall  observe,  that  we  are  also,  like  Schwegler,  inclined 
to  draw  a  line  between  the  reigns  of  Xuma  and  Tullus  Hostilius ; 
not,  however,  so  strong  a  one  as  he  draws,  and  upon  quite  different 
grounds.  AYe  do  not  think  that  the  two  kings  before  Tullus  are 
purely  fictitious,  nor  that  the  supernatural  events  connected  with 
their  reigns  at  all  prove  them  to  be  so.  If  such  events  are  not 
found,  or  at  least  not  so  often  found,  in  the  later  history,  it  is 
simply  because  the  age  had  grown  less  superstitious.  They  recur, 
however,  again,  as  in  the  reign  of  Servdus  TuUius,  and,  after  the 
expulsion  of  the  kings,  in  the  apparition  of  the  Dioscuri  at  the 
battle  of  Lake  Eegillus ;  and  therefore  their  disappearance  cannot 
be  said  to  form  any  very  marked  division  of  the  history  here.  But 
we  have  already  touched  upon  this  subject  more  than  once,  and 
need  not  enter  \x\)0\i  it  again. 

The  true  reason  why  the  history  after  ^uma  comes  out  more 
clearly  and  distinctly  is,  that  contemporary  record  had  begun. 
IS'uma  had  instituted  the  Pontifices,  who  became  the  historians  of 
the  city.  The  annals  of  the  Pontifex  IVIaximus,  though  only  a 
brief  and  dry  record  of  facts,  were  necessarily  an  authentic  record, 
and  an  invaluable  guide  for  the  succession  of  events.  The  Com- 
mentarii  of  the  Pontifices  were  evidently  more  discursive,  and  made 
some  approach  to  regular  history.  We  have  already  shown  this 
from  the  fact  of  their  tracing  the  history  beyond  the  foundation  of 
Kome.  And  though  the  Commentarii,  or  the  greater  part  of  them 
— but  not  the  Annales  Maximi — probably  perished  in  the  confla- 
gration of  Rome,  yet  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  Pontifices 
should  have  forgotten  their  contents,  and  highly  improbable  that 
they  should  not  have  attempted  to  restore  them.  And,  indeed,  we 
have  already  shown,  from  the  fact  of  Dionysius  citing  them  for 
prse-Roman  history,  that  the  Pontifices  must  have  done  so. 

The  treaty  with  the  Albans  before  the  combat  of  the  Horatii 


.v.- 

■■?•, 


:^ 


4- 

1'- 


•h 


l5# 


m-^ 


■"^S 


"  A'" 


•j5 


and  Curiatii  is  evidently  from  record.  Livy^  says  that  it  is  the 
oldest  treaty  remembered,  which  must  mean  whose  forms  were 
recorded ;  for  he  has  himself  alluded  to  many  treaties  made  before 
this  time.  The  addition  of  the  names  of  M.  Valerius  as  the  Fe- 
tialis,  and  Sp.  Fusius  as  the  Pater  Patratus,  are  strong  additional 
proofs  of  record.  It  is  not  thus  that  the  poet  or  the  literary  forger 
invents ;  the  former  disregards  such  details,  the  latter  avoids  them , 
as  they  might  prove  an  easy  means  of  detection.  The  forms  of  trial 
of  Horatius  are  also  evidently  from  record. 

When  Schwegler  observes  that  the  oldest  records  made  in  Eome 
were  annalistic,  we  perfectly  agree  with  him ;  but  when  lie  says 
that  the  history  does  not  assume  tliis  form  till  the  period  of  the  first 
secession,  we  cannot  perceive  any  grounds  for  that  assertion,  nor 
does  he  state  any.  The  history  has  the  form  of  annals  from  the 
first  establishment  of  the  consulship,  simply  because  the  consuls 
were  annual  magistrates,  and  their  election  marks  the  beginning  of 
a  new  year.  But  the  office  of  king  being  for  life,  there  was  no 
event  to  mark  the  termination  of  each  year.  The  early  writers, 
who  set  not  that  value  on  chronology  which  it  was  found  to  have 
when  history  became  more  of  a  science,  neglected  to  discriminate 
the  separate  years  of  the  kings,  and  contented  themselves  with 
stating  the  whole  sum  of  each  reign  at  the  end  of  it.  That  the 
Annales  Maximi  were  digested  according  to  years  is  shown  by  their 
very  name ;  and  if  they  had  not  been  so  during  the  regal  period, 
Cicero  would  have  been  unable  to  demonstrate  the  mistake  respect- 
ing the  clironology  of  Pythagoras  by  referring  to  them.^ 

The  alleged  contradictions  in  fact  and  chronology  we  have  exa- 
mined in  the  Introduction ;  and  if  our  view  be  admitted,  then  the 
history  does  not  rest  on  oral  tradition.  And  that  it  does  not  so 
rest  is  shown  by  Schwegler's  own  estimate  of  oral  tradition.  For 
he  says  that  the  older  oral  tradition  is,  the  less  authentic  it  is, 
which  is  very  true ;  and  then  he  proceeds  to  say  that  the  history  of 
the  sixth  and  seventh  kings  is  altogether  legendary,  while  he  admits 
that  the  reigns  of  Tullus  Hostilius  and  Ancus  Marcius,  the  third 
and  fourth  kings,  who  reigned  half  a  century  earlier,  are  at  least 
semi-historical !  But  we  shall  show  that  the  reigns  of  the  last  two 
kings  are  not  legendary. 

That  all  the  details  of  early  Roman  history  are  literally  authentic 

1  Lib.  i.  24,  "Nee  ullius  vetustior  foederis  memoria  est." 
*  See  above,  p.  168. 

n2 


^Wi 


I 


&4' 


'1^ 


180 


HISTORY  OF  THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


we  have  never  undertaken  to  establish.  Schwegler  admits  that  its 
events  have  henceforth  an  historical  foundation,  that  they  are  not 
mere  inventions ;  though  we  hardly  see  how  this  agrees  with  his 
character  of  the  last  two  reigns.  But  his  fears  about  their  proper 
sequence  are  groundless,  as  that  would  have  been  secured  by  the 
fact  that  "  the  oldest  historical  records  made  in  Eome  were  anna- 
listic." 

Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  remark  in  his  tenth  section  :  "  If  we 
examine  the  figure  and  position  of  Tullus  Hostilius  more  closely,  we 
cannot  but  perceive  that  he  answers  to  Komulus,  just  as  his  suc- 
cessor, Ancus  Marcius,  answers  to  Xuma.  The  contrast  of  the  first 
two  kings  is  repeated  in  the  relation  of  the  third  king  to  the  fourth. 
Even  the  old  tradition  adverts  to  this  parallel  by  characterising 
Tullus  as  the  very  image  {Ehenhild)  of  Eomulus,  and  Ancus  Mar- 
cius as  the  imitator  of  ^uma,  and  following  in  his  track.  Tullus, 
like  Romulus,  is  the  warlike  prince,  wholly  and  exclusively  intent 
upon  enlarging  his  dominions  and  promoting  the  glory  of  his  reign  ] 
his  god  is  also  Mars,  the  god  of  war  ;  he  also  forms  a  contrast,  like 
Eomulus,  to  the  pontifical  Xumn,  nay,  a  still  sharper  one,  as  he 
ridicules  the  pious  institutions  of  his  predecessor,  and  finds  his  death 
through  the  same  invocation  of  Jupiter  Elicius  wliich  Numa  had 
made  with  impunity." 

"  But  it  is  not  only  in  character  that  the  second  pair  of  kings 
resemble  the  first :  Ancus  Marcius  is  the  grandson  of  Xuma,  while 
Tullus  Hostilius  is  not,  indeed,  the  grandson  of  the  deified  Eomu- 
lus, who  left  no  heirs  of  his  body,  but  of  that  Hostius  Hostilius 
who  appears  in  the  van  in  the  great  battle  against  the  Sabines, 
and  also  grandson  of  HersHia,  who  also  appears  as  the  wife  of 
Eomulus.  It  is  clear  that  this  genealogy  rests  not  on  any  actual 
historical  tradition,  that  it  is  not  an  actual  fact,  but  merely  ex- 
presses an  ideal  relation  :  and  in  this  view  it  is  very  remarkable 
that  Ancus  Marcius  is  constantly  called  "grandson  of  Numa;" 
nay,  that  it  is  expressly  handed  down  that  only  his  grandfather  is 
known,  and  not  his  father.  But  since  the  contrast  of  the  first  two 
kings,  of  the  warlike  Eomulus  and  priestly  ^uma,  is  decidedly 
mythical,  a  well-grounded  suspicion  arises  that  the  analogous  parts 
in  which  the  two  following  kings  appear,  in  like  manner  rests  not 
on  historical  tradition,  but  on  construction. 

"  The  history  of  the  third  king,  moreover,  shows  itself  in  another 
point  to  be  constructive.     The  first  four  kings,  for  instance,  as  we 


"^\ 


.  \-i 


RESEMBLING  PAIRS    OF  KINGS. 


181 


;| 


M' 

■M : 


■is' ' 


have  already  remarked,  represent  the  four  component  parts  of  the 
Eoman  nation,  the  three  original  tribes  and  the  plebs  ;  and  this  in 
such  a  manner  that  the  creation  of  the  third  tribe  and  the  addition 
of  aplehs  are  placed  in  causal  connexion  with  the  rule  of  the  third 
and  fourth  kings.  Tullus  Hostilius  is  the  founder  of  the  Luceres, 
Ancus  Marcius  of  the  j^lehs.  By  virtue  of  this  construction,  the 
rasing  of  Alba  Longa  and  the  settlements  of  the  Albans  (the  sub- 
sequent Luceres)  at  Eome  are  ascribed  to  the  third  king  :  this  fact 
is  the  central  point  and  tenor  of  his  reign.  But  if  it  bears  the 
assigned  relationshi])  to  this  connexion,  it  follows  of  itself,  without 
regard  to  the  objections  which  will  be  developed  further  on,  that 
the  manner  in  Avhich  Tullus  Hostilius  is  connected  with  the  de- 
struction of  Alba  Longa  cannot  pass  for  completely  historical." 

To  this  we  reply,  that  if  there  is  any  general  resemblance  in  the 
Roman  kings  among  themselves,  and  in  the  Sabine  kings  among 
themselves,  this  arises  from  national  character.  It  was  natural 
that  the  Eomans,  who  had  to  fight  their  way  in  the  world,  and  to 
establish  a  new  state,  should  have  made  military  alFairs  their  para- 
mount consideration.  The  Sabines,  on  the  contrary,  who  had  been 
long  established  in  Italy,  had  not  this  pressing  necessity  to  devote 
their  attention  almost  exclusively  to  war.  They  appear,  besides, 
to  have  been  naturally  of  a  religious  temper  ;  and  thus  we  find  that 
even  Tatius,  during  his  short  reign,  founded  as  many,  or  more, 
worships  than  Eomulus ;  the  mind  of  Kuma  was  wholly  devoted 
to  religious  affairs,  and  Ancus  paid  more  attention  to  them  than 
Tullus.  This  general  resemblance,  therefore,  instead  of  being  an 
argument  against  the  truth  of  the  history,  is  an  argument  in  its 
favour,  because  it  is  true  to  nature.  And  if  these  resembling 
kings  come  in  alternate  pairs,  that  arises  from  the  agreement  by 
which  the  sovereign  was  to  represent  the  Eomans  and  Sabines  in 

turn. 

But  though  there  is  a  general  national  resemblance  in  the  charac- 
ters of  the  Eoman  kings  and  Sabine  kings,  it  is  by  no  means  so 
close  as  Schwegler  pretends  it  to  have  been.  How  can  Tullus  be 
caUed  the  "very  image"  of  Eomulus,  when  the  tradition  tells  us 
that  he  was  still  more  ferocious  1^  Eomulus  had  paid  a  great  deal  of 
attention  to  civil  affairs,  and  some  to  religion,  which  we  do  not  find 
in  Tullus  Hostilius.  And  how  can  Ancus  Marcius  be  said  to  have 
been  the  mere  imitator  of  Xuma,  when,  according  to  tradition, 
1  ''Ferocior  etiam  quam  Romulus  fuit."—Liv.  i.  22. 


I 


182 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


REPRESENTATIVE   KINGS. 


183 


confirmed  by  the  annals  of  his   reign,  his   character  was  a  mixed 
one,  partaking  of  that^of  Romulus  and  that  of  Numa  1  ^ 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  answer  the  objection  that  Ancus  is 
the  grandson  of  !N'uma.  Where  is  the  improbability  that  a  grand- 
son of  x^iima  should  have  been  elected  king  1  But  the  critic  must 
have  been  pushed  to  great  extremities  for  an  argiiment,  when  he 
tries  to  connect  Tullus  Hostilius  with  Eomulus,  because  he  was  the 
grandson  of  Hostius  Hostilius,  who  distinguished  himself  in  the 
Sabine  War  !  By  the  same  method  we  might  connect  William  Pitt 
with  King  George  the  Second,  because  his  father,  Lord  Chatham, 
distinguished  himself  in  that  reign.  Tradition  varies  as  to  whether 
Hersilia  were  the  spouse  of  Romulus  or  of  Hostilius  ;  -  but  we 
cannot  confound  both  these  traditions,  as  Schwegler  here  does  for 
the  sake  of  bolstering  up  his  theory,  and  make  Hersilia  at  once  the 
wife  of  Romulus  and  the  grandmother  of  Tullus  Hostilius.  If  she 
had  been  the  wife  of  Hostius  Hostilius,  she  might  have  been  the 
grandmother  of  Tullus  ;  but  if  she  had  been  the  A\dfe  of  Romulus, 
she  would  have  been  the  grandmother  of  nobody  at  all,  for  Romulus 
had  no  children.  And  it  does  not  follow,  because  tradition  varies 
on  this  point,  that  it  therefore  expresses  a  merely  ideal  relation. 
On  the  contrary,  the  doubts  about  the  genealogy  rather  show  the 
good  faith  of  the  tradition :  the  father  of  Tullus,  not  having  been 
eminently  distinguished,  had  slipped  out  of  memory ;  but,  if  the 
story  had  been  a  myth,  it  would  have  been  easy  to  invent  a  father 
for  him.  The  same  answer  applies  to  the  objection  about  the 
father  of  Ancus  being  unknown.  A  similar  objection  had  been 
raised  as  early  as  the  time  of  Cicero,  who  in  his  Republic  introduces 
Laelius  as  making  it ;  to  whom  Scipio  replies  :  "  Exactly  so  ;  but 
in  those  times  the  names  of  the  kings  were  almost  the  only  ones 
that  became  known  and  famous."  ^ 

And  thus  the  whole  argument  falls  to  the  ground.  For  it  is  not 
proved  that  the  first  two  kings  are  mythical,  or  that  the  second 

^  ''Medium  erat  in  Anco  ingeniiim,  et  Numce  et  RomuU  memor."— Liv. 
i.  32. 

*  She  is  represented  as  the  wife  of  Romulus  by  Livy,  i.  11  ;  Ovid,  Met. 
xiy.  830  ;  Sil.  Ital.  Pun.  xiv.  812,  and  others;  as  the  wife  of  Hostilius  by 
Dionys.  iii.  1 ;  Macrob.  Sat.  i.  6,  &c. 

^  "  Lsel. :  Sed  obscura  est  historia  Romana ;  siquidem  istius  regis  matrem 
habemuR,  ignoramus  patrem.  So. :  Ita  est,  inquit :  sed  temporum  illorum 
tantum  fere  regum  illustrata  sunt  nomina."— De  Rep.  ii.  18. 


*5.  7 


two  are  counterparts  of  them,  and  present  the  same  contrast  to  each 
other  as  the  first  two. 

The  next  argument  drawn  from  the  first  four  kings  representing 
the  constituent  parts  of  the  nation,  is  founded  on  one  of  those  far- 
fetched and  mysterious  constructions  which  seem  peculiar  to  the 
Teutonic  minJ.     In  answer,  it  suffices  to  say  that  it  does  not  rest 
on  facts.     Tullus  Hostilius  is  not  the  founder  of  the  Lucercs,  nor 
Ancus  Marcius  of  the  plebs.     It  was  Niebidir  ^  who  first  invented 
this  theory,  which  is,  we  believe,  now  almost  universally  abandoned. 
The  attempt  to  prove  from  Livy  that  the  Luceres  were  the  Albans  2 
planted  on  the  Coelian  Hill,^  is  quite  abortive.     Livy  had  before 
described  the  Lucercs  as  forming  the  third  stem-tribe  of  the  Roman 
nation  in  the  time  of  Romulus.^     Therefore,  when  he  says,  respect- 
ing the  location  of  the  Latins  by  Ancus  :  "Et  quum  circa  Palatium 
sedem  veteres  Romanorum,  Sabini  Capitolium  atque  arcem,  Coelium 
montem  Albani  implessent:  Aventinum  novce  multitudini  datum" 
(i.  33),  he  cannot  possibly  mean,  as  Schwegler  would  make  him,^ 
that  the  Romans,  Sabines,  and  Albans  were  the  three  oldest  com- 
ponent parts  of  the  Roman  people  ;  and  that  hence  it  is  no  far- 
fetched conjecture  ("es  ist  hiedurch  die  Vermuthung  nahe  gelegt")  to 
conclude  that  they  were  the  three  stem-tribes.   A  conclusion  which 
he  has  rightly  characterised;   for  it  rests  only  on  the  conjecture 
of  a  few  German  scholars ;  while  that  the  three  tribes  existed  in 
the  time  of  Romulus  is  confirmed  by  the  best  Roman  authors  ;  not 
only  by  Livy,  but  also  by  Cicero,^  and  by  implication  by  Yarro. 
For  when  that  author  mentions  the  Ager  Romanus  di^  at  first  divided 
among  the  three  tribes  of  the  Tatienses,  Ramnes,  and  Luceres,^  he 
evidently  means  that  they  arose  at  the  same  titne  ;   since  if  the 
Albans  were  the  Luceres,  they  would  have  obtained  their  share  by 
addition  and  not  by  division. 

As  Tullus  Hostilius  was  not  the  founder  of  the  Luceres,  so 

1  Rom.  Gesch.  i.  312.  ^  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  512,  ft'. 

3  Lib.  i.  30,  33. 

*  Lib.  i.  13.  Livy,  indeed,  there  mentions  only  the  three  centuries  of 
knif'hts  ;  but  as  these  centuries  were  taken  from  the  tribes,  and  bore  the  same 
name,  it  is  impossible  that  Livy  should  have  been  ignorant  of  the  existence 
of  the  tribes  at  that  time.     AVe  have  already  adverted  to  this. 

5  Ibid.  S.  514. 

6  "Romulus  populum  in  tribus  tres  descripserat."— De  Rep.  il  8. 

7  "  Ager  Romanus  primum  divisus  in  parteis  tres,  a  quo  tribus  appellata 
Tatiensium,  Ramnium,  Lucenim."— Ling.  Lat.  v.  55. 


184 


HISTOKY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


QUESTIONS  ABOUT  ALBA. 


185 


neither  was  Ancus  Marcius  the  founder  of  the  plebs.  On  this  sub- 
ject Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  very  justly  remarks  :  ^  "  Livy  likewise  repre- 
sents Ancus  as  granting  the  right  of  citizenship  to  a  large  body  of 
Latins,  and  settling  them  in  the  city  on  and  near  the  Aventine. 
This  statement  is  considered  historical  by  Niebuhr,  who  supposes 
that  the  Latin  settlers  in  question  were  the  origin  of  the  Eoman 
plebs,  and  that  Ancus  was  the  founder  of  the  plebeian  order.  For 
such  an  hypothesis  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  foundation ;  no 
peculiar  importance  is  attached  to  these  Latin  settlements  by  Livy : 
they  are  not  mentioned  by  Dionysius,  who  describes  the  Latin  War 
at  some  length ;  and  the  ancients  know  nothing  of  Ancus  in  the 
character  which  is  attributed  to  him  by  Kiebuhr.  The  plebeian 
order  is  treated  by  them  as  coeval  with  the  very  existence  of  the 
Eoman  state  :  thus  Dionysius  describes  Eomulus  as  dividing  the 
people  into  patricians  and  plebeians,  while  Cicero  speaks  of  his 
distributing  the  plebeians  as  clients  among  the  several  nobles."  2 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  in  a  note,  confirms  these  authorities  by  two 
citations  from  Livy.  "  Livy,"  he  says,  "  speaks  of  Eomulus  being 
'  multitudini  gratior  quam  patribus '  (i.  15) ;  and  in  c.  18,  of  Numa, 
*  neque  se  quisquam,  nee  factionis  sua;  alium,  nee  denique  patrum 
ant  civium  quemquam  prasferre  illi  viro  ausi.'  To  these  two 
quotations  we  will  add  two  more  from  the  same  author,  both  under 
the  reign  of  Eomulus,  in  which  the  existence  of  the  plehs  is  not 
merely  implied,  but  actually  expressed  :  *  Quasdam  (Sabinas)  forma 
excellentes,  primoribus  patrum  destinatas,  ex  plehe  homines,  quibus 
datum  negotium  erat,  domes  deferebant '  (i.  9) :  *  Mirum,  quantum 
illi  viro  (Proculo  Julio),  nuntianti  hsec,  fidei  fuerit;  quamque  desi- 
derium  Eomuli  aiyud  pJlebem  exercitumque,  facta  fide  immortalitatis, 
lenitum  sit'  (i.  16)." ^  This  will  suffice  at  present,  as  the  whole 
question  of  the  early  Eoman  population,  whether  wholly  patrician, 
or  patrician  and  plebeian  mixed,  will  be  discussed  more  at  length 
further  on. 

As,  therefore,  the  assertion  that  the  first  four  kings  represent 
the  four  component  parts  of  the  Eoman  people  is  unproved  and 
groundless,  no  argument  can  be  derived  from  it  to  show  that  the 

^  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  468. 

*  Cic.  De  Eep.  ii.  9 ;  Dionys.  ii.  8. 

5  On  the  same  subject,  the  reader  may  consult  in  the  Classical  Museum 
(vol.  vi.  p.  15  seqq.)  a  review  by  Professor  Newman  of  Dr.  Ihne's  Treatise  on 
the  Eoman  Constitution. 


history  of  the  third  king  is  not  genuine,  but  only  constructive, 
that  is,  invented. 

Schwegler,  after  these  general  objections,  then  proceeds,  in  the 
eleventh  section  of  his  twelfth  book,  to  examine  the  details  of  the 
history  of  the  third  king  :  *'  If,"  he  observes,   "  we  examine  more 
closely  the  traditionary  history  of  TuUus  Ilostilius,  his  war  with 
Alba  Longa'  demands  our  particular  attention.     In  this  war.  Alba 
Lonffa  emerges  for  the  first  time  out  of  the  darkness  and  oblivion 
into  which  it  had  sunk,  after  its  momentary  appearance  at  the  time 
of  Eome's  foundation.      Its  internal  and  external  relations,  it  is 
true,  still  remain  quite  obscure.     Livy  calls  Cluilius  a  king,  Cato, 
a  Prcetor  ;  and  his  successor  in  ofhce,  FufFetius,  who  is  chosen  in 
the  camp  by  the  army,  is  called  Dictator.     It  is  clear  that  these 
contradictory  accounts  are  not  grounded  on  authentic  tradition. 
When  Licinius  Macer  says  that  after  the  death  of  :N'umitor  annual 
dictators  were  elected  at  Alba,  because  the  royal  line  had  become 
extinct  with  this  prince,  this  account  is  doubtless  only  an  inference 
drawn  from  the  circumstance  that  no  kings  of  Alba  appear  after 
Numitor,  and  Mettius  Fuffetius  is  commonly  called  a  dictator,  after 
the  analogy  of  the  later  Latin  dictators.     But  in  this  the  fact  is 
overlooked,  that  after  the  death  of  Xumitor  a  scion  of  the  Silvian 
house  was  still  in  existence,  namely,  Eomulus.     Plutarch,  or  his 
authority,  has  considered  this  circumstance ;  and  he  relates  that, 
after  Kumitor's  death,  Eomulus  did   not   indeed  succeed  to  the 
Alban  throne,  but  that  from  this  time  he  appointed  every  year  a 
chief  magistrate  of  the  Albans.     But  if  this  was  the  case,  and  if, 
after  ISTumitor's  death,   Alba   became  politically  dependent   upon 
Eome,  how  is  it  that  it  suddenly  appears  again  independent  and 
self-governed,   without  any  event  having  been  mentioned  which 
could  have  produced  this  alteration?     How  conies  it  that  TuUus 
Ilostilius   did   not    enforce   his   ancient   pretensions  and   rights? 
These   questions    cannot   be    answered,   because    the   account   of 
Plutarch,  which  has  occasioned  them,  is  as  arbitrary  an  invention 
as  all  the  rest  that  is  handed  down  concerning  the  relations  of 
Alba  Longa  at  that  period.     The  account  of  Plutarch  is  contra- 
dicted by  that  of  another  antiquary  (Cincius),  that  Alba  Longa 
enjoyed  the  supremacy  over  the  Latin  states  till  the  time  of  Tullus 
Ilostilius." 

"We  agree  with   Schwegler  in  thinking  that  the   account   in 
Plutarch,  like  many  other  things  in  that  author,  is  an  arbitrary 


186 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


THE   FOSSA    CLUILIA. 


187 


and  foolish  invention,  and  we  prefer,  like  him,  the  statement  of 
Cinciiis,^  as  more  conformable  to  the  real  state  of  things.  We  do 
not  do  so,  however,  because  we  think,  with  Schwegler,  that  his 
own  questions  are  unanswerable  :  on  the  contrary,  we  think  that 
they  might  be  very  easily  answered.  For  it  might  be  replied  that, 
after  the  death  of  Numitor,  the  appointment  of  magistrates  at  Alba 
fell  to  Eomulus  by  right  of  his  royal  blood ;  that  his  death  was  the 
event  which  made  Alba  independent ;  and  that  TuUus  Hostilius, 
not  being  of  the  Silvian  race,  could  not  claim  any  rights  over  that 

city. 

Eut,  as  we  have  said,  we  not  only  abandon  Plutarch's  story, 
which  is  unsupported  by  any  good  authority,  but  also,  as  we  have 
already  done,  the  whole  account  of  Rome's  early  connexion  with 
Alba,2  and  of  its  having  been  a  colony  of  that  city.  And  this 
absence  of  all  connexion  is  confirmed  by  the  **  darkness  and 
oblivion"  which  we  find  respecting  Alba  in  the  early  Roman 
history;  a  state  of  things  which  could  not  have  supervened  if 
Rome  and  Alba  were  really  so  closely  connected  as  they  are  related 
to  have  been.  And  under  these  circumstances  it  is  not  surprising 
that  the  Romans  should  not  have  been  very  well  informed  respect- 
ing the  government  of  a  foreign  city.  We  think,  however,  that 
Licinius  Macer  was  probably  right,  or  at  all  events  that  Alba  was 
governed,  at  the  time  of  the  war  with  Tullus,  by  a  chief  magistrate 
somewhat  analogous  to  the  Roman  dictator  or  prretor ;  for  in  early 
times  prcetor  was  the  name  of  the  chief  magistrate.  Our  reasons 
for  this  opinion  are,  that  if  Alba  had  been  under  royal  government, 
the  Alban  army  would  not  have  proceeded  to  elect  a  dictator  on 
the  death  of  Cluilius ;  that  at  all  events  he  would  have  been  nomi- 
nated from  Alba,  which  was  only  six  or  seven  miles  off ;  that  the 
preponderance  of  evidence  tends  to  show  that  Cluilius  was  only  a 
dictator ;  and  that  Livy  himself  varies  somewhat  in  speaking  of 
the  ofiice.  Thus  he  uses  imperitahat,  not  regnabat,  to  denote  the 
rule  of  Cluilius  at  Alba  ;  in  the  next  chapter  he  calls  him  dux ; 
though  he  also  styles  him  rex.^  We  may  add  that  neither  Livy 
nor  Dionysius,  in  their  accounts  of  the  transplantation  of  the 
Alban  families  to  Rome,  drop  a  word  about  there  having  been  any 
royal  family  there ;  while  it  is  hardly  possible  to  suppose  that,  if 
there  had  been  an  Alban  royal  family,  those  writers  would  not  have 


^  Apud  Fest.  p.  241,  Praetor. 

3  Lib.  vi.  c.  22,  23. 


^  See  above,  p.  31. 


i^i. 


K  '*■  1 


distinguished  them  from  the  rest."^  On  the  whole,  we  may  conclude 
that  the  exact  nature  of  the  chief  magistrate's  office  at  Alba  was 
not  very  clear  to  the  Romans  ;  but  this  is  a  point  of  minor  import- 
ance, and  does  not  affect  the  credibility  of  their  early  history.^ 

"  After  the  breaking  out  of  the  war,"  proceeds  Schwegler,  "  the 
Albans  pitch  their  camp  at  the  place  called  Fossa  Cluilia.     This  is 
the  same  trench  at  which  Coriolanus  also  halts  after  taking  from 
the  Romans  all  their  conquests.     Hence  we  may  presume  that  this 
trench  once  formed  the  boundary  of  the  primitive  Roman  territory. 
It  was  five  miles  from  Rome,  and  Strabo  gives  the  same  distance 
for  the  original  Roman  border.^      If  this  conjecture  is  right  it 
explains  at  once  why  the  old  tradition  placed  the  camp  of  Corio- 
lanus, the  camp  of  the  Albans,  and  the  combat  of  the  Horatii  and 
Curiatii  at  this  spot.     But  when  tradition  ascribes  the  origin  of 
the  Fossa  Cluilia  to  the  Alban  prince  Cluilius,  this  is  undoubtedly 
an  etymological  myth.     Fossa  Cluilia  simply  means  a  drain,   or 
sewer ;  it  is  therefore  quite  superfluous  to  have  invented  an  Alban 
prince  to  explain  the  name.     That  Cluilius  appears  only  for  the 
sake  of  the  trench  is  evident  from  his  sudden  death  :  he  dies  in 
the  camp  over   night  to  make  room  for  Mettius   Fufl*etius,  who 
doubtless  was  alone  mentioned  in  the  old  tradition  as  the  opponent 
of  Tullus  Hostilius." 

The  real  etymology  of  the  name  of  Fossa  Cluilia  is  a  piece  of 
antiquarianism  not  very  important  to  the  history.     As  to  its  uses, 
Schwegler  assigns  two,  that  of  a  boundary  and  that  of  a  drain, 
which  he  unites.     But  neither  of  them,  we  think,  is  very  probable. 
We  do  not  read  anywhere  that  the  Roman  boundary  was  marked 
out  by  a  fosse ;  and  that  there  should  have  been  a  sewer  in  that 
rural  district,  midway  between  Rome  and  Alba,  and  that  before 
the  Cloaca  Maxima  had  been  constructed  even  at  Rome,  as  Schwegler, 
after  Hartung,*  supposes,  is  a  highly  singular  and  Teutonic  suppo- 
sition.    We  think  that  the  fosse  was  most  likely  the  remains  of  a 
camp  J  but  whether  Cluilius  was  invented  to  explain  the  name  we 

1  Liv.  i.  30  ;  Dionys.  iii.  29. 

«  It  seems  probable  that  the  Romans  may  have  derived  their  name  of  rex 
from  the  Sabines,  and  these  from  the  Celtic— See  Newman's  Regal  Rome, 
p.  60,  seqq. 

3  Liv.  i.  23,  ii.  39  ;  Dionys.  iii,  4  ;  Strabo,  v.  3,  2. 

•1  Religion  der  Romer,  ii.  250.  Hartung  derives  the  name  cluitia  from 
chiere,  which  anciently  meant  imrgare.     But  it  means  other  things  besides. 


188 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


will  not  attempt  to  fathom,  but  will  content  ourselves  with  observ- 
ing that  it  seems  hardl}'  worth  while. 

"The  decision  of  the  war,"  continues  Schwegler,  "is  left  by 
agreement  on  both  sides  to  a  duel.  Duels  of  this  kind,  which  are 
in  some  degree  to  be  ranked  with  judgments  of  God,  are  not  in- 
frequent in  antiquity  ;  and  in  this  point  of  view  the  combat  of  the 
Horatii  and  Curiatii  may  not  be  unhistorical.  But  that  there 
should  have  been  trij^lets,  or  three  children  born  at  one  birth,  in 
both  camps  at  the  same  time,  and  that  their  mothers  should  also 
have  been  twins,  seems  very  improbable.  And  the  story  appears 
more  certainly  an  invention,  the  more  the  mythical  character  of 
the  accounts  is  laid  bare.  For  in  the  twin  sisters  is  certainly 
symbolized  the  relationship  of  the  two  sister  nations,  and  in  the 
triplet  brothers  the  circumstance  of  their  being  composed  of  three 
stem-tribes.^  The  names  also  of  the  two  pairs  of  brothers  seem  to 
have  a  symbolical  meaning ;  and  the  Horatii  especially  call  to  mind 
Horatius  Codes,  who  likewise  appears  as  the  champion  of  the 
Roman  boundaries.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  a  question 
whether  this  combat  is  an  historical  fact,  or  whether  it  is  not  rather 
a  mythical  representation  of  the  decisive  struggle  between  Rome 
and  Alba  Longa." 

The  main  point  to  be  considered  here  is  whether  the  strife 
between  the  two  cities  was  decided  by  some  such  combat  as  that 
of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii ;  the  details  are  of  minor  importance. 
Schwegler  allows  that,  according  to  ancient  manners,  such  a  combat 
may  be  historical ;  but  he  adopts  in  preference  the  fanciful  explana- 
tion of  Niebuhr,  that  the  whole  story  is  merely  symbolical.  This 
explanation,  however,  which  assumes  a  relationship  between  the 
Horatii  and  Curiatii,  rests  only  on  the  suspicious  testimony  of 
Dionysius ;  for  Livy  knows  nothing  of  the  mothers  of  the  com- 
batants having  been  twins ;  and  thus  also  a  great  part  of  Schwegler's 
objection,  from  the  miraculous  nature  of  the  tale,  vanishes.  Even 
that  the  brothers  were  triplets  is  probably  an  exaggeration ;  they 
were  more  likely  only  brothers  of  about  the  same  age,  or  even  may 
only  have  belonged  to  the  same  gens.  That  there  were  more 
Curiatii  at  Alba  appears  from  the  fact  of  their  having  been  trans- 
planted to  Rome  at  the  destruction  of  Alba.^  It  is  more  consistent 
with  experience  that  narratives  of  this  kind  are  exaggerated  and 
embellished  than  that  they  are  entirely  invented.     Nay,  we  have  a 

^  See  Niebuhr,  Rom.  Gesch.  i.  365  ;  Anm.  871.  *  Liv.  i.  30. 


r 


THE   HORATII   AND   CURIATII. 


189 


very  probable  clue  to  the  origin  of  the  exaggeration  :  Trigeminus 
appears  to  have  been  a  cognomen  of  the  Curiatii.  Thus  we  find  a 
consul  named  P.  Curiatius  Festus  Trigeminus,  in  B.C.  453."^  It  may 
be  objected  indeed  that  the  Curiatii  may  liave  affected  the  name  of 
Trigeminus,  in  memory  of  the  combat  of  their  ancestors.  But  if 
they  were  the  conquered  party,  this  seems  hardly  credible.  And, 
granting  that  the  Curiatii  affected  the  name,  then  we  have  collateral 
testimony  to  the  tradition  about  two  centuries  after  the  combat, 
and  sixty-three  years  before  the  Gallic  conflagration ;  ard  indeed  in 
all  probability  a  great  deal  earlier.  For  it  is  not  likely  that  the 
consul  in  B.C.  453  was  the  first  Curiatius  who  bore  the  name  of 
Trigeminus ;  though  from  his  magistracy  he  is  the  first  who  is 
known  to  have  done  so.  It  is  more  probable  that  it  had  been 
handed  down  hereditarily  from  the  period  of  the  combat,  even  if 
the  three  champions  themselves  did  not  bear  it.  And  thus  their 
family  name  of  Trigeminus  may  have  caused  them  to  be  taken  for 
trigemini  fratres,  or  triplets. 

The  battles  of  the  ancients,  from  the  absence  of  firearms,  were 
less  noisy  than  modern  ones  ;  for  the  same  reason  the  hostile  forces 
approached  each  other  more  nearly;  and  thus  there  was  more 
opportunity  for  parley,  and  for  arranging  the  decision  in  the  manner 
described.  The  same  cause  rendered  personal  prowess,  and  the 
heroism  of  the  leaders  of  more  importance ;  hence  a  greater  dis- 
position to  refer  the  result  to  single  combat. 

It  may  seem  strange  that  Livy  should  intimate  a  doubt  whether 
the  Horatii  or  the  Curiatii  were  the  Roman  champions ;  a  point  not 
adverted  to  either  by  Schwegler  or  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis.  But  this  may 
be  only  an  instance  of  that  confusion  which  Livy  himself  complains 
of,  as  introduced  into  Roman  history  by  family  memoirs  and  funeral 
orations  ;  the  great  houses  sometimes  seeking  to  appropriate  honours 
which  did  not  properly  belong  to  them. 

Schwegler  in  his  critique  of  the  reign  of  TuUus  does  not  advert 
to  the  tombs  of  the  five  slain  combatants,  to  that  of  Horatia,  the 
Pila  Horatia,  and  the  Sororium  Tigillum ;  all  of  which,  Livy  tells 
us,  were  extant  in  his  time,  and  formed  so  many  records  of  the 
history  to  which  they  related.  As  Schwegler  had  adopted  jSTie- 
buhr's  hypothesis  that  the  whole  history  is  symbolical,  he  could 
not   resort,   without   damaging   that   hypothesis,    to  his  favourite 

1  See  the  Fasti,  A.u.c.  300  ;  aud  Rubino,  Rom.  Staatsv.  S.  492,  Aum. 


190 


HISTOKY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   HOME. 


explanation,  that  it  is  a^iological.     Eut  the  existence  of  the  monu- 
ments is  thus  left  unexplained. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  however,  adopts  the  a3tiological  theory.  **A 
large  part  of  this  narrative,"  he  observes,^  "  comes  before  us  in  the 
suspicious  form  of  explanations  of  certain  names  of  places  and 
buildings  ;  of  topographical  and  monumental  legends.  The  Fossa 
Cluilia,  the  tombs  of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii,  and  also  the  tomb 
of  Horatia,  the  Pila  Horatia,  the  Sororium  Tigillum,  the  altars  of 
Juno  Sororia,  and  Janus  Curiatius,  and  the  piacular  rites  of  the 
Horatian  family,  are  the  several  pegs  to  which  a  large  portion  of 
the  story  is  attached.  The  trial  of  Horatius  likewise  serves  as  an 
occasion  for  introducing  the  primitive  right  of  appeal  to  the  people 
in  capital  trials  for  homicide.  Again,  the  story  of  the  demolition 
of  Alba  explains  the  existence  of  temples  on  the  ancient  site  of  the 
town,  and  enables  certain  Roman  families  to  trace  their  origin  to 
families  of  Alba.  Some  of  these  memorials  have  been  regarded  as 
conclusive  of  the  realities  of  the  events  which  they  are  supposed  to 
record;  but  the  existence  of  the  tombs  of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii, 
and  of  the  Sororium  Tigillum,  for  example,  is  not  a  better  proof  of 
the  celebrated  combat  to  which  they  referred,  than  the  tools  of 
Epeus  at  Metapontum  are  of  the  Trojan  Horse,  or  of  the  pickled  sow 
at  Lavinium  of  the  prodigy  seen  by  uSlneas.  Some  trustworthy 
contemporary  testimony  is  necessary  in  order  to  prove  the  occurrence 
of  an  event  before  the  connexion  of  the  monument  with  that  event 
can  be  established.  Where  the  contemporary  testimony  implies  the 
continued  existence  of  a  monument,  its  existence  in  later  times  is  a 
powerful  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  that  testimony.  Thus  the 
clear  extant  remains  of  a  canal  across  the  promontory  of  Athos 
serve  to  corroborate  the  account  in  Herodotus  of  its  excavation  by 
Xerxes.  In  like  manner  the  ancient  accounts  of  the  construction 
of  the  Flavian  amphitheatre  at  Rome  are  supported  by  the  vast 
ruins  of  the  Coliseum.  On  the  other  hand,  the  statements  of  several 
ancient  writers  respecting  the  gigantic  size  of  the  walls  of  Babylon, 
are  rendered  improbable  by  the  entire  absence  of  all  traceable 
remains  of  these  supposed  bulwarks ;  if  their  extent,  height,  and 
thickness  were  what  they  are  reported  to  have  been,  it  seems 
incredible  that  every  vestige  of  them  should  have  disappeared. 
But  where  the  event  which  serves  to  explain  the  monument  is 
unrecorded  by  independent  credible  evidence,  the  mere  existence  of 

1  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  462. 


X, 


;-■'■' 


HOKATIAN  MONUMENTS. 


191 


the  monument  is  not  a  proof  of  the  event.  The  true  origin  of  the 
monument  may  have  been  forgotten,  and  its  unexplained  existence 
may  have  served  as  an  inducement  to  invent  a  legend  in  order  to 
account  for  it.  Such  etiological  legends  may,  as  is  proved  by  many 
examples  in  the  Greek  mythology,  and  in  Ovid's  Fasti,  be  imagina- 
tive and  poetical;  they  are,  however,  necessarily  insulated  and 
unconnected,  until,  by  the  skill  of  the  subsequent  compiler,  they 
are  woven  into  the  texture  of  a  consecutive  historical  narrative." 

The  conditions  here  laid  down  for  the  credibility  of  the  history 
attached  to  any  monument  are,  first,  that  it  should  have  been  con- 
temporaneously recorded ;  second,  the  existence  of  the  monument 
in  later  times.     We  can  hardly  suppose  that  by  ''  later  times"  Sir 
G.  C.  Lewis  meant  our  own  times,  so  that  Ave  might  see  it  with  our 
own  eyes ;  though  the   only  two  examples  which  he  gives  of  a 
perfectly   credible   monument,   those   of    Xerxes'    canal   and   the 
Coliseum  at  Rome,  would  almost  lead  us  to  think  so.     But  this 
would  reduce  the  ancient  monuments   to  a  very   small  number 
indeed;  and  those  connected  with  the  story  of  the  Horatii  and 
Curiatii  were  not  of  a  kind  likely  to  survive  to  our  own  times,  like 
those  gigantic  ones  just  mentioned.     Such  a  method  would  even 
play  great  havoc  with  some  modern  ones.    Thus,  for  instance,  there 
are  many  even  of  the  present  generation  who  have  never  seen  old 
London  Bridge,  and  would  be  justified  on  this  principle  in  dis- 
believing its  existence.    It  was  on  the  same  principle  that  Juvenal, 
as  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  shows  in  a  note,  ridiculed  the  existence  of 
Xerxes*  canal  as  a  figment  of  Greek  mendacity ;  though,  in  this 
case,  he  might  have  convinced  himself  of  its  reality,  had  he  taken 
the  trouble  to  go  to  Athos  and  make  the  necessary  researches. ^     By 
"later  days,"  therefore,  we  presume  that  Sir  G.   C.   Lewis  only 
meant— as  any  fair  critic  would  mean— the  historical  times;  and 
then  the  condition  would  be,  that  the  monument  and  its  history 
should  have  been  contemporaneously  recorded;   that  the  record 
should  have  survived  a  certain  number  of  centuries,  as  well  as  the 
monument,  and  that  the  latter  should  have  been  seen  and  attested 
by  some  credible  witness,  whose  testimony  has  come  down  to  us. 
Is^ow  the  monuments  in  question  may  be  said  to  fulfil  both  these 
conditions.    For  the  balance  of  probability  and  evidence  is  in  favour 

1  **  Creditur  olim 

Velificatus  Athos,  et  quicquid  Graecia  mendax 
Audet  in  historia."— Sat.  x.  173,  seqq. 


192 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ETIOLOGICAL   HISTORY. 


193 


of  record  having  begun  in  the  reign  of  TuUus  Hostilius ;  while  the 
existence  of  the  monuments  in  the  reign  of  Augustus  Ccesar  is 
attested  both  by  Livy  and  Dionysius.^ 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  in  the  above  paragraph  places  all  ancient 
monuments  on  the  same  level,  whether  they  relate  to  the  wholly 
supernatural  and  incredible,  as  the  sow  of  ^neas,  or  to  the  highly 
improbable,  as  the  tools  of  Epeus,  or  are  quite  ordinary  and  natural 
ones,  as  tombs,  and  altars,  and  a  beam  of  wood.  But  surely  this 
does  not  show  much  discrimination ;  nor  is  it  very  good  logic  to 
argue  that,  because  some  miraculous  relics  have  been  invented,  we 
are  therefore  to  reject  even  those  monuments  against  which  no  im- 
probability can  be  urged,  but  rather  have  all  the  appearance  of 
truth  in  their  favour.  This  is  to  reverse  the  celebrated  maxim, 
"  Credo  quia  impossibile  est,"  into  its  opposite,  "  ]N"on  credo 
quia  possibile  est." 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  aitiological  explana- 
tion of  the  monuments  ?  Is  it  njore  natural  and  credible  than  the 
account  handed  down  to  us  ?  We  are  of  opinion  that  it  is  a  great 
deal  more  difficult  to  believe.  The  monuments  and  usages  relating 
to  the  story  of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii  are  exceedingly  numerous. 
We  have  the  sepulchres  of  the  five  combatants,  the  tomb  of 
Horatia,  the  Sororium  Tigillum,  the  Pila  Horatia,  the  altars  to 
Janus  Curiatius,  the  piacular  sacrifices  of  the  r/ens  Horatia,  &c. 
To  suppose  that  all  these  could  have  been  woven  into  one  story,  so 
as  to  stand  to  one  another  in  the  connexion  of  cause  and  effect,  as 
we  are  told  was  also  done  with  the  certainly  fewer  incidents  of  the 
Asylum,  the  rape  of  the  Sabines,  &c.,  surpasses  all  belief.  The 
Eomans,  according  to  these  setiological  theories,  appear  to  have  had 
one  of  the  most  singular  histories  in  the  world.  They  possessed  a 
great  many  usages  and  monuments  which  nobody  is  believed  to 

1  *'  Sepulcra  extant^  quo  quisque  loco  cecidit :  duo  Romana  uno  loco  pro- 
pius  Albam,  tria  Albana  Romam  versus;  sed  distantia  locis,  ut  pugnatum 
est." — Liv.  i.  25.  "Spolia  Curiatiorum  fixa  eo  loco,  qui  nunc  Pila  Horatia 
appeUatur." — lb.  26.  "  Id  (tigillum)  Aoc^zc  quoque  publico  semper  refectum 
7)Utiiet.  — lb.  eCTi  8'  iv  T(f}  (TTifuircf  rep  <p4povri  dirh  Kapiyrjs  Kdru  toTs  iirl 
rdy  Kv-rrpiov  ipxoixivois  (TTeyooTrhVf  tvQa  o'l  n  ^wfioi  /jl^povciv  ot  t6t€  IZpvQivnSt 
KoX  ^v\ov  virep  avTcov  r^rarai  5v(t\  to7s  dvriKpv  dWi^Kasu  roixois  ivrjpixocrfxivoVy 
8  yiverai  rots  k^iovaiv  wrep  KecpaXrjs,  KuXovfievoi^  rf  'Pufia'iKy  SiaAe/cry  p.v\ov 
a5€\<pr}s.  TovTO  fxkv  5t)  rb  p^wpioi'  t^s  av/j-tpopas  rod  dvSpos  /JLVTffJLeTou  eV  rfj  TroAet 
€Tt  <|)u\aTT€t,  dvaiais  yepaip6iJi€vov  Ka$'  iKaaTov  iyiavrSy.  €T€poi/  5e  rrjs 
dperris  fxapTvpiou  r)  ywviaia  <ttv\\5  (Pila  Horatia),  k.  t.  \. — Dionys.  iii.  22. 


have  known  the  origin  of;  and  at  the  same  time  they  had  several 
ingenious  writers— for  a  history  so  composed  can  hardly  be  attri- 
buted to  one  person — who  were  capable  not  only  of  arbitrarily 
uniting  these  together  in  difierent  plausible  stories,  but  of  obtain- 
ing for  these  stories  the  implicit  belief  of  their  countrymen  ! 

A  fxvourite  mode  of  objection  to  tlie  accounts  of  the  early  his- 
tory is,  "  Show  us  anything  parallel  in  the  history  of  other  nations." 
We  may  retort  this  objection  on  the  etiological  critics,  and  request 
them  to  point  out  any  nation,  of  equal  standing  with  the  Eomans, 
that  has  a  history  entirely  composed  of  etiological  myths.  Many 
nations  have  an  early  mythological  history — in  even  the  wildest 
fables  of  which  are  perhaps  some  grains  of  truth ;  but  that  a  nation 
should  have  many  tolerably  old  customs — for,  after,  all  the  anti(|uity 
of  Kome,  from  its  foundation  to  the  historical  times,  is  as  nothing 
compared  with  that  of  many  other  peoples — and  many  tolerably 
old  monuments,  and  yet  that  the  traditions  respecting  these  cus- 
toms and  monuments  should  be  only  a  series  of  tales  invented  to 
explain  them,  we  take  to  be  without  a  parallel.  We  might  also 
ask  t3ie  same  critics  for  an  example  of  any  sane  nation— and  tlie 
Eomans  were  a  sane  nation — which  perpetuated  the  memory  of 
some  political  event — observe,  we  say  political  event,  not  any  re- 
ligious creed  or  worship — by  keeping  up  for  centuries,  at  the  public 
care  and  expense,  the  monument  which  attested  it.  Yet  this  the 
Eomans  did  with  the  Sororium  Tigillum.  As  we  are  writing  these 
lines,  the  fircAvorks  are  celebrating  the  two  hundred  and  sixty-first 
anniversary  of  the^  Gunpowder  Plot ;  and  there  seems  to  be  no 
reason  for  doubting  that  the  same  custom  may  be  observed  two  or 
three  centuries  longer,  should  the  Pope  last  as  long,  and  England 
remain  Protestant.  [N'ow  it  would  be  about  as  reasonable  to  say 
that  the  story  of  Guy  Fawkes  was  invented  to  explain  this  custom, 
as  to  affirm  that  the  tale  of  Iloratius  is  nothing  but  an  etiological 
myth  attached  to  the  Sororium  Tigillum. 

While  we  are  upon  the  subject  of  the  monuments  of  this  reign, 
we  will  say  a  word  or  two,  by  anticipation,  about  the  Curia  Hos- 
tilia,  or  senate-house  built  by  Tullus  Hostilius  after  he  had  elected 
the  chief  persons  among  the  Albans  into  the  Patres.  This  building 
lasted  till  the  year  B.C.  53,  when  it  was  burnt  during  the  funeral 
of  Clodius.  We  must  infer,  therefore,  that  it  was  large  and  hand- 
some ;  such  a  senate-house,  in  short,  as  did  not  disgrace  the  majesty 
of  the  Eoman  Eepublic  in  the  greatness  and  splendour  which  it  had 

0 


194 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


attained  at  the  period  of  its  accidental  destruction,  since  no  project 
had  hitherto  been  entertained  of  erecting  a  new  one.  There  could 
be  no  doubt  about  its  origin ;  no  ancient  writer  has  ever  uttered 
one.  Had  it  been  erected  and  dedicated  by  any  eminent  magis- 
trate during  the  Eepublic,  w^e  should  certainly  have  heard  of  it ;  for 
that  was  an  honour  greedily  sought  after,  and  the  memory  of  which 
no  family  would  have  willingly  let  die.  ISTo thing  is  better  attested 
than  the  origin  of  the  public  buildings  at  Eome.  We  know  the 
names  of  nearly  all  their  founders  or  dedicators,  even  of  those 
buildings  that  had  perished  before  the  imperial  times,  as  it  is 
natural  we  should,  since  these  names  must  have  been  recorded,  not 
only  on  the  structures  themselves,  but  also  in  the  Annales 
Maximi,  and  this  of  itself  is  a  strong  proof  of  contemporary  regis- 
tration. The  antiquity  of  the  Curia  Hostilia  must  have  been 
attested  by  its  architecture,  as  well,  no  doubt,  as  by  the  inscription 
which  it  bore.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  and  Schwegler  are  silent  about 
this  building.  It  would,  no  doubt,  have  been  difficult  to  torture  it 
into  the  eetiological  theory ;  it  might  have  been  too  bold  an  affirma- 
tion that  King  TuUus  Hostilius  was  invented  to  explain  its  exist- 
ence. Yet  we  are  to  believe  that  an  age  capable  of  erecting  such  a 
structure  could  hardly  read  and  write ;  that  it  neglected  all  memory 
of  the  past,  all  record  of  its  own  actions,  for  the  benefit  of  pos- 
terity ! 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  are  inclined  to  regard,  with  M. 
Duruy,^  the  structures  and  observances  transmitted  from  the  reign 
of  Tullus  Hostilius,  as  "  irrecusables  monuments  de  la  vieille  his- 
toire  Romaine." 

In  the  fourteenth  section  of  his  twelfth  book,  SchAvegler  proceeds 
to  examine  the  trial  of  Horatius.  "  We  shall  say  only  a  few  words,'* 
he  proceeds,  "  about  the  trial  of  Horatius,  a  closer  examination  of 
w^hich  belongs  to  the  history  of  the  Roman  criminal  laAV.  The 
most  accurate,  and  to  all  appearance  the  most  authentic,  representa- 
tion of  the  trial  is  given  by  Livy.  He,  doubtless,  took  it,  like 
other  accounts  in  his  first  book  concerning  Eoman  legal  and  sacred 
antiquities,  which  are  peculiar  to  his  work,  from  the  Commen- 
taries of  the  Priests ;  a  legal  collection,  in  which  v/e  may  conjec- 
ture that  the  principles  and  the  traditions  of  the  law  were  exhi- 
bited, in  the  shape  of  examples  from  legal  cases  that  were  related, 
and   in  which  may  have  been  thus  exhibited,    for  example,  the 

^  Hist,  des  Romains,  t.  i.  p.  98. 


TRIAL   OF   HORATIUS   EXAMINED. 


195 


i 


.'..* 


oldest  process  of  trial  and  appeal  in  the  case  of  Horatius.  In  this 
respect,  Livy's  account  has  an  incontestable  value  ;  but  we  must 
not  think  that  wo  possess  in  it  a  true  and  documentary  narrative, 
trustworthy  in  all  its  details.  The  trial  of  Horatius  lies  ftir  beyond 
the  historical  times  of  Eome ;  it  belongs  to  an  epoch  when  the  art 
of  writing  was  far  from  being  yet  known  or  used,  and  concerning 
which,  therefore,  there  is  no  genuine  historical  tradition.  It  is 
impossible  to  assume  that  a  single  legal  trial  of  this  period  lias 
been  truly  and  credibly  handed  down ;  and  therefore  the  narrative 
of  the  trial  of  Horatius  can  only  be  received  as  the  immemorially 
oldest  example  of  trial  and  appeal.  It  must,  therefore,  in  the 
present  case,  be  left  undetermined  how  high  this  memory  reaches, 
what  is  the  age  of  the  forms  handed  down,  and  whether  the  case 
is  not  anachronistically  dated  back  in  the  regal  period.  On  the 
whole,  the  trial  is  too  isolated,  too  little  authenticated  in  its  details, 
and  is  also  too  variously  related  to  allbrd  a  sure  and  convincing 
answer  to  the  numerous  questions  respecting  the  history  of  Eoman 
law  which  it  calls  forth." 

The  author  then  j^roceeds  to  give  several  examples  of  such  ques- 
tions ;  but,  as  these  relate  only  to  points  of  Eoman  law,  and  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  credibility  of  the  story  itself,  we  need  not 
here  enter  into  them. 

It  is  highly  probable,  as  Schwegler  supposes,  that  Livy  took  his 
account  from  the  Commentarii  Pontificum ;  and  if  these  were,  as 
he  further  supposes,  a  collection  illustrating  by  examples  the  prin- 
ciples and  traditions  of  the  Eoman  law,  he  comes  to  a  right  con- 
clusion in  saying  that  it  has  an  incontestable  value.  But  we  do 
not  see  how  this  agrees  with  what  he  goes  on  to  say,  that,  though 
taken  from  what  must  have  been  the  highest  legal  source,  it  has  no 
true  and  documentary  character ;  nor  how,  if  Livy  had  so  taken  it, 
but,  what  seems  to  be  Schwegler's  meaning,  had  altered  and  muti- 
lated it,  and  transferred  it  anachronistically  to  the  regal  times, — a 
proceeding  which  would  show  Livy  a  common  forger,  and  quite 
unworthy  to  be  called  an  historian, — it  could  have  any  value  what- 
ever. 

We  do  not  think,  however,  that  the  Commentarii  Pontificum 
were  a  mere  legal  collection.  We  believe  that  they  contained  the 
history  of  Eome.  How  else  should  Livy  mention  their  destruction 
in  the  Gallic  conflagration — or  rather,  the  destruction  of  the  greater 
'part  of  them — as  a  loss  of  one  of  the  sources  of  Eoman  history,  of 

0  2 


'    it 


196 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


WARS   OF   TULLUS   HOSTILIUS. 


197 


the  ^'memoria  rerum  gedarum  P  Uut  we  have  already  treated  on 
this  subject  in  the  Introduction  and  elsewhere,  and  need  not  enter 
upon  it  here ;  nor  upon  the  antiquity  of  the  art  of  writing,  upon 
which  8chwegler  holds  opinions  that  are  contrary,  as  we  have 
shown,  to  all  evidence  and  probability. 

The  Libri  Pontilicii,  which  were  different  from  the  Commentarii 
and  the  Annales,  appear  to  have  contained  law-cases,  as  we  see 
from  the  passage  in  Cicero,  quoted  by  Schwegler  in  a  note  :  "  Pro- 
vocationem  etiam  a regibus  fuisse  declarant  Pontificii  Libri  ;"^  which 
shows  that  law-cases  must  have  been  recorded  in  the  time  of  the 
kings.  But  it  is  quite  impossible,  as  Schwegler  there  supposes, 
that  Cicero  can  have  been  alluding  to  this  trial  of  Horatius.  The 
appeal  in  that  case  is  not  from  the  king,  but  from  the  duumvirs. 
The  narrative  of  Livy  would  rather  tend  to  show  that  there  was 
no  appeal  from  the  king.  TuUus  'Hostilius  appoints  these  duum- 
virs because  he  does  not  wish  to  be  the  author  of  an  unpopular 
judgment,  and  of  the  punishment  which  would  follow  it ;  whence 
we  may  presume  that  no  appeal  would  have  been  allowed  from  his 
sentence  :  he  could  not  constitutionally  refer  the  matter  to  the 
people.  But  he  had  a  means  of  escape  from  this  disagreeable 
position  by  appointing,  as  the  constitution  allowed  him,  duumvirs, 
from  whom  there  was  an  appeal.  AYe  may  infer,  then,  that  Tullus 
Hostilius  inherited  all  the  absolute  power  of  Romulus,  and  that 
Cicero  may  have  been  alluding  to  a  case  under  one  of  the  later 
kings,  when  this  power  may  have  been  somewhat  modified. 

In  saying  that  the  case  is  ''variously  related,"  Schwegler  must 
be  alluding  to  the  account  of  Bionysius,^  which  agrees  in  its 
general  tenor  with  that  of  Livy,  but  differs  in  the  details.  Ac- 
cording to  Dionysius  it  is  also  the  people  that  acquit  Horatius ; 
though  not  through  an  appeal  from  the  duumvirs,  but  from  the 
king  referring  the  matter  to  them.  This  variation,  however,  on 
the  part  of  such  a  writer  as  Dionysius  affords  no  ground  for  doubt- 
ing the  narrative  of  Livy ;  the  accuracy  and  credibility  of  which 
are  moreover  strengthened  by  his  citing  the  actual  words  of  the 
law.  The  making  of  the  crime  of  Horatius  high  treason  {perduelUo) 
instead  of  murder  or  manslaughter  seems  also  to  bear  out  this 
view.  The  institution  of  the  duumvirs  was,  in  the  case  of  high 
treason,  a  method  of  preventing  the  king  being  judge  in  his  own 
cause.     The  case  of  Horatius  was  probably  made  high  treason  by 

1  Liv.  vi.  1.  2  De  Rep.  ii.  31.  3  Lib.  iii.  c.  22. 


■   % 

•V 


fc 


a  somewhat  arbitrary  construction  :  that  in  killing  his  sister  he  had 
taken  the  law  into  his  own  hands,  and  thus  usurped  the  royal 
prerogative. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  observes  :  ^  "  The  entire  story  of  the  Iloratii 
and  Curiatii,  including  the  murder  of  the  sister,  has  the  air  of 
romance  : "  and  adds  in  a  note  :  "It  does  not  appear  that  there  is 
any  instance  of  the  murder  of  a  sister  by  a  brother  in  authentic 
history.  It  is  possible  that  some  cases  may  have  occurred  in 
oriental  palaces ;  but  the  sanguinary  ostracism  of  Asiatic  despotisms 
has  usually  been  limited  to  brothers.  Olympias,  the  mother 
of  Alexander  the  Great,  murdered  the  daughter  of  Cleopatra, 
Alexander's  step-sister,  in  her  mother's  arms ;  this  was  an  act  of 
feminine  vengeance  :  Alexander  had  contented  himself  with  the 
murder  of  his  step-brother  Caranus,  her  other  child.  See  Justin 
ix.  7  ;  xi.  2.  The  murder  of  a  sister  by  a  brother  seems  to  be 
extremely  rare,  if  not  unknown,  in  the  records  of  criminal  courts." 

If  such  crimes  are  fortunately  rare,  they  are  the  less  likel}^  to  be 
invented ;  and  this  rarity  does  not  make  them  impossible.  Xor, 
we  will  add,  in  this  case  highly  improbable.  For  we  must  picture 
to  ourselves  a  ferocious  youth,  whose  nerves  had  been  wound  up  to 
the  highest  pitch  by  the  excitement  of  the  combat  ;  who  had  just 
escaped  an  imminent  death  by  the  achievement  of  a  glorious  victory ; 
who  in  this  state  of  excitement  and  exultation  suddenly  encounters 
the  tears  of  a  sister,  instead  of  joy  and  congratulation.  L^pon  some 
tempers,  under  such  circumstances,  the  effect  described,  however 
dreadful  and  abominable,  may  not  improbably  have  been  produced. 

We  will  now  proceed  with  the  history. 


THE  WARS   OF  TULLUS   HOSTILIUS- 

AXBA   LONGA. 


-DESTRUCTION   OF 


The  Alban  peace  was  not  of  long  duration.  The  dictator 
had  incurred  the  hatred  of  the  commonalty  because  he  had 
committed  the  public  fortunes  into  the  bands  of  three  soldiers. 
This  circumstance  quite  addled  the  little  understanding  that 
he  had  ;  and  as  he  had  lost  his  popularity  because  good  coun- 
sels had  been  unsuccessful,  he  determined  on  regaining  it  by- 
adopting  bad.     Wherefore,  as  he  had  before  sought  peace  in 

^  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  464. 


nniaa 


198 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


TREACHERY   OF   METTIUS. 


199 


war,  so  lie  now  sought  war  in  peace.  But,  as  he  saw  that  his 
own  city  had  more  courage  than  strength,  he  incited  other 
nations  to  open  and  proclaimed  war ;  reserving  for  his  own, 
under  the  form  of  alliance,  the  opportunity  for  treachery. 
The  Fidenates,  who  were  a  Eoman  colony,  taking  the  Yeien- 
tines  into  their  counsels  and  alliance,  are  incited  to  war  by  an 
agTcement  that  the  Albans  should  desert  to  them.  ISlo  sooner 
was  the  revolt  of  Fidenae  ascertained  than  Tullus,  havinij 
summoned  Mettius  with  his  army  from  Alba,  marched  against 
the  enemy,  crossed  the  Anio,  and  pitched  his  camp  at  the 
point  where  it  falls  into  the  Tiber.  The  army  of  the  Veien- 
tines  had  passed  the  Tiber  between  this  spot  and  Fidente  ; 
hence  in  the  line  of  battle  they  formed  the  right  wing,  near 
the  river,  while  the  Fidenates  occupied  the  left  towards  the 
mountains.  Tullus  opposed  the  Eoman  troops  to  the  Veien- 
tines,  and  the  Albans  against  the  legion  of  the  Fidenates.  The 
Alban  leader  was  as  cowardly  as  he  was  faithless,  and,  neither 
venturing  to  hold  his  ground,  nor  openly  to  go  over  to  the 
enemy,  he  drew  away  gradually  towards  the  mountains ;  and, 
not  being  able  to  make  up  his  mind,  he  kept  mano3uvring 
his  troops,  by  way  of  wasting  the  time,  intending  to  join 
with  his  forces  the  side  which  should  prove  superior.  The 
Eomans  who  were  posted  in  that  quarter  were  at  first  sur- 
prised on  perceiving  their  flank  left  exposed  by  the  departure 
of  their  allies ;  till,  at  length,  a  knight  galloped  off  to  the 
king,  and  told  him  that  the  Albans  were  marching  away.  In 
this  sudden  danger,  Tullus  made  a  vow  of  twelve  Salii,  and  of 
fanes  to  Pallor  and  Pavor.  Then,  upbraiding  the  knight  with 
a  loud  voice,  so  that  the  enemy  might  hear,  he  bade  him 
return  to  his  post :  "  There  was  no  cause  for  alarm  ;  it  was  by 
his  command  that  the  Alban  army  was  being  led  round  to 
attack  the  Fidenates  in  rear."  At  the  same  time  he  told  him 
to  order  the  cavalry  to  raise  their  spears.  By  this  method  a 
great  part  of  the  Eoman  foot  were  prevented  from  seeing  the 
departure  of  the  Alban  army ;  while  those  who  were  nearer, 
and  had  beheld  it,  having  heard  the  king's  words,  fought  all 
the  more  vigorously.  The  terror  was  now  on  the  side  of  the 
enemy ;  for  they  had  heard  what  the  king  had  said,  and  a 


■Mti!- 


great  part  of  the  Fidenates,  being  Eoman  colonists,  understood 
Latin.  Wherefore,  fearing  lest  they  should  be  cut  off  from 
their  town  by  a  sudden  descent  of  the  Albans  from  the  hills, 
they  began  to  retreat.  Tullus  pursued,  and  completely  dis- 
persed them,  and  then  returned  to  charge  the  Veientines, 
already  shaken  by  the  panic  of  their  allies.  They  also  could 
not  resist  the  attack,  but  the  river  behind  them  prevented  a 
disorderly  flight.  Thither,  however,  lay  the  only  chance  of 
escape.  When  they  arrived  at  the  river,  some  threw  away 
their  arms,  and  rushed  blindly  into  the  water ;  others  were 
killed  on  the  bank  while  they  stood  deliberating  whetlier  they 
should  fight  or  fly.  Kever  before  had  the  Eomans  fought  so 
terrible  a  battle. 

After  it  was  ended,  the  Alban  army,  which  had  been  merely 
spectators  of  it,  were  led  down  into  the  plain ;  when  Mettius 
congratulated  Tullus  on  his  victory,  while  Tullus,  on  his  side, 
conversed  with  him  in  a  friendly  manner.  Then  he  ordered 
the  Albans  to  encamp  by  the  side  of  the  Eomans,  and  pre- 
pared a  lustral  sacrifice  for  the  following  day.  When  morning 
dawned,  and  all  had  been  prepared,  he  commanded  l)oth. 
armies  to  be  summoned  to  a  coiicio,  in  the  customary  manner. 
The  heralds,  beginning  from  the  extremities,  first  summoned 
the  Albans,  who,  excited  by  the  novelty  of  hearing  the  Eoman 
king  speak,  gathered  close  round  him.  Then,  as  had  been 
arranged,  the  Eoman  legion,  all  armed,  surrounds  them ;  the 
centurions  having  first  received  instructions  to  execute  the 
king's  orders  without  delay.  Tullus  then  spoke  as  follows: 
"  Eomans  !  if  there  was  ever  an  occasion,  in  any  war  that  we 
have  waged,  to  return  thanks,  first  to  the  immortal  gods  for 
their  goodness,  and  then  to  your  own  valour,  it  was  the  battle 
fought  yesterday.  For  you  had  to  contend  not  only  with 
your  enemies,  but — what  is  much  more  terrible  and  dangerous 
— with  the  perfidy  of  your  allies.  For,  to  undeceive  you  of  a 
false  opinion,  it  was  not  by  my  command  that  the  All)ans 
retreated  to  the  mountains.  The  orders  which  I  gave  con- 
cerning it  were  nothing  but  a  pretence,  in  order  that,  being 
ignorant  that  you  were  deserted,  you  might  not  lose  courage 
for  the  fight,  and  that  the  enemy  might  be  struck  with  terror, 


200 


HISTORY  OF   THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


ALBA  LONGA   RAZED. 


201 


and  incited  to  fly,  by  the  opinion  that  they  were  taken  in  the 
rear.  Nor  is  the  crime  which  I  am  denouncing  that  of  all  the 
Albans.  They  did  but  follow  their  general,  as  you  yourselves 
would  have  done,  had  I  wished  to  lead  you  away.  It  was 
Mettius  who  led  them  off — Mettius,  the  contriver  of  this  war 
— Mettius,  the  violator  of  the  treaty  between  Eome  and  Alba. 
I  must  make  a  signal  example  of  him  to  all  the  world,  or 
somebody  else  may  again  venture  to  do  the  like." 

At  these  words  the  armed  centurions  surrounded  Mettius, 
and  the  king  proceeded  to  conclude  his  speech  as  follows :  "  I 
have  in  my  mind  a  design  which  I  pray  may  be  a  happy  one, 
and  of  good  omen,  both  to  the  Eoman  people  and  to  myself, 
and  to  you,  O  Albans!  It  is  to  convey  the  whole  Alban 
people  to  Ptome ;  to  give  the  franchise  to  the  plebeians,  to 
elect  the  leading  Alban  classes  into  the  Eoman  patricians,  and 
thus  to  make  one  city  and  one  state,  reuniting  the  peoples 
which,  being  formerly  one,  were  divided  into  two."  At  tliese 
words  the  Alban  youth  were  agitated  with  a  variety  of  con- 
flicting emotions ;  but,  as  they  were  unarmed,  and  surrounded 
by  armed  men,  tlieir  common  danger  compelled  them  to  be 
silent.  Tullus  then  proceeded  as  foUows  :  "  Mettius  Fuffetius, 
if  it  were  possible  for  you  to  learn  to  be  faithful,  and  to 
observ^e  treaties,  I  would  have  suffered  you  to  live,  and  been 
your  instructor  in  that  way.  But,  since  your  disposition  is 
incorrigible,  I  will  teach  men,  by  making  an  example  of  you, 
to  hold  sacred  those  engagements  which  you  have  violated. 
AVherefore,  just  as  your  mind  was  lately  wavering  between 
the  Fidenates  and  the  Eomans,  so  shall  your  body  be  now 
torn  asunder."  In  pursuance  of  this  sentence,  two  quaclrigce 
were  brought,  iVIettius  was  bound  upon  the  chariots,  and 
then  the  horses  were  urged  in  different  directions,  carry  in  o-  off 
in  both  chariots  parts  of  the  lacerated  body  and  the  limbs 
which  had  been  retained  in  the  chains,  while  all  averted  their 
eyes  from  so  dreadful  a  spectacle.  This  was  the  first  and  last 
example  among  the  Eomans  of  a  species  of  execution  which 
regarded  not  the  laws  of  humanity.  In  other  respects,  we 
may  boast  that  no  nation  has  contented  itself  with  milder 
punishments. 


While  these  things  were  still  going  on,  the  cavalry  had 
been  despatched  to  Alba  to  conduct  the  population  to  Eome ; 
after  which  the  legions  were  marched  thither  to  destroy 
the  town.  Very  different  when  they  entered  it  was  the  spec- 
tacle from  that  usually  presented  by  captured  cities.  There 
was  none  of  that  tumult  and  consternation  which  are  seen 
when  the  gates  have  been  broken  in,  or  the  walls  levelled 
with  the  ram,  or  the  citadel  taken  by  assault,  with  hostile 
shouts  and  charges  of  armed  men  through  the  streets,  and 
everything  mingled  in  one  common  ruin,  either  by  fire  or 
sword.  Instead  of  these  reigned  a  mournful  silence ;  a 
sorrow  that  found  no  vent  in  words  seemed  to  paralyse  the 
minds  of  all ;  in  the  forgetfulness  of  an  absorbing  fear,  they 
hesitated  as  to  what  they  should  leave,  what  they  should 
carry  off ;  some  were  inquiring  of  others,  or  lingering  on  tlieir 
thresholds,  or  wandering  over  their  houses,  which  they  were 
to  see  for  the  last  time.  It  w^as  not  till  the  shouts  of  the 
horsemen  were  heard,  commanding  them  to  depart,  and  the 
noise  of  the  falling  houses  which  were  being  pulled  down  in 
the  further  parts  of  the  city,  and  the  dust  which,  though 
rising  in  distant  places,  had  covered  everything  with  a  sort  of 
cloud,  that  they  tore  themselves  from  their  hearths,  and  their 
household  gods,  and  the  houses  in  which  they  had  been  born 
and  brought  up,  hastily  seizing  and  carrying  off  what  articles 
they  could.  And  now  the  roads  were  filled  with  an  unbroken 
line  of  emigrants,  shedding  fresh  tears  at  the  sight  of  their 
common  misery;  while  lamentations  arose,  and  especially 
from  the  women,  in  passing  the  august  temples  now  occupied 
by  armed  men,  and  leaving,  as  it  were,  their  captured  gods 
behind.  After  the  Albans  had  quitted  the  city,  the  Eomans 
levelled  all  the  buildings,  both  public  and  private,  with  the 
ground ;  and  thus  in  a  brief  space  was  destroyed  the  work  of 
four  centuries,  for  so  long  had  Alba  stood.  The  temples  of  the 
gods  were  alone  preserved,  agreeably  to  the  king's  orders. 

Eemarks. — On  this  narrative  Schwegler  observes  :  ^  "  According 
to  tradition,  the  conflict  of  the  two  states  ends  with  the  destruction 

1  Buch  xii.  s.  11,  S.  6^7. 


202 


HISTORY   OF   THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


of  Alba  Longa.  That  this  destruction,  like  Alba's  former  existence 
as  the  capital  of  Latiiim,  is  an  historical  fact,  cannot  be  reasonably 
doubted.  It  is  irrefutably  testified  by  the  continued  existence  of 
the  temples  and  worships  of  the  destroyed  city ;  and  especially  the 
continuance  of  the  Alban  priesthood  of  Yesta,  which  existed  in  the 
last  days  of  heathenism."  Schwegler  then  cites  in  a  note  the 
following  authors  for  the  fact  that  the  temples  were  spared  :  Livy, 
i.  29  ;  Dionysius,  iii.  27  and  29  ;  Strabo,  v.  3,  4  j  p.  231.  And  for 
their  continued  existence,  and  the  worships  attached  to  them,  the 
following  passages,  w^hich  we  give  at  length  : — Cicero  {pro  Mil. 
31,  S5),  "  Yos  Albani  tumuli  atque  luci,  vos,  inquam,  imploro  atque 
testor,  vosque  Albanorum  obrutae  ara>,  sacrorum  populi  Komani 
socise  et  sequales,  quas  ille  (Clodius),  csesis  prostratisque  sanctissimis 
lucis,  substructionum  insanis  molibus  oppresserat ; "  Livy  (v.  32), 
*'  Majores  nobis  sacra  qusedam  in  monte  Albano  Lavinioque  facienda 
tradiderunt ; "  Lucan  (Fhars.  ix.  990),  where  Julius  Caesar  says — 

*'Di  cinerum,  Phrygias  colitis  quicumque  ruinas, 
^nereque  mei,  quos  nunc  Lavinia  sedes 
Servat  et  Alba  Lares,  et  quorum  lucet  in  aris 
Ignis  adhuc  Plirygius  ; " 

Statins  (Silv.  v.  2)  "  Qua  prisca  Teucros  Alba  colit  Lares ;"  Momm- 
sen  {Insc7'iptiones  Eegni  jyeapolitani J  No.  1435),  "pontifex  Albanus 
minor ; "  Juvenal,  {Sat.  iv.  60) — 

**  Utque  lacus  suberant,  ubi,  quamquam  diruta,  servat 
Ignem  Trojanum  et  Yestam  coUt  Alba  minorem." 

A  Yesta  Albana  is  also  mentioned  in  an  inscription  in  Orelli, 
{Corpus  Inscr.,  ]^o.  1393);  "  Yirgo  Yestalis  maxima  Alhana"  {ibid. 
No.  2240);  and  in  the  inscription  in  Marini,  {Atti,  &c.  p.  654); 
and  Yirgines  Albante  by  Asconius  (Ad  Cic.  3fiL  p.  41).  That  the 
Alban  priesthood  of  Yesta  continued  to  exist  in  the  time  of 
Symmachus  we  see  from  the  following  passages:  {Ej).  ix.  128), 
*' Primigenia,  dudum  apud  Albam  Yestalis  antistes,"  and  {ib.  129), 
"  Primigenia  virgo,  quae  sacra  Albana  curabat." 

Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  observe  :  "It  is  another  question 
whether  the  destruction  of  Alba  took  place  as  tradition  records, 
and  especially  w^hether  it  was  accomplished  by  Eome.  We 
have  the  weightiest  grounds  for  answering  this  question  in  the 
negative.  If  we  take  our  stand  on  the  common  tradition,  Eome, 
in   the  first  years  of   its  third  king,   not   yet  three   generations 


FALL   OF   ALBA  EXAMINED. 


203 


V* 


mwjb; 


old,  and  remaining  without  external  increase  during  the  long  reign 
of  Kuma,  must  have  been  a  state  of  very  moderate  extent,  and 
very  humble  military  power.  It  was  only  through  the  con([uest 
of  the  surrounding  Latin  territory,  which,  however,  falls  in  the 
reigns  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  kings,  that  it  attained  a  more  re- 
spectable position.  Before  the  Tarquinian  foundations,  it  was 
quite  an  insignificant  place,  of  which  we  can  only  form  the  most 
paltry  idea.  It  is  not  to  be  thought  that  this  Home,  which  even 
in  the  time  of  the  /Equian  and  Yolscian  wars  w^as  often  compelled  to 
exert  itself  many  years  to  conquer  and  hold  a  hostile  city,  wliich 
centuries  later  contends  for  years  with  Yeii,  Antium,  Pra3neste, 
Yelitrae,  should  have  been  strong  enough  under  its  third  king, 
that  is,  in  the  time  of  its  infancy,  without  any  external  aid  to 
level  to  the  ground  the  ancient  metropolis  of  Latium.  And  at 
what  a  small  price,  how  easily,  and  as  it  were  in  sport,  does  it 
obtain  this  immense  success  !  ]\I.  Horatius,  wdtli  a  chosen  body  ot 
cavalry,  is  sent  before,  presses  through  the  open  gates  into  the 
unguarded  and  undefended  town,^  and  announces  the  king's  com- 
mand. Xobody  thinks  of  resistance.  The  procession  of  emigrants 
takes  its  departure,  and  the  tow^n  vanishes  in  dust  and  ashes.  It 
is  a  fiu"ther  improbability  that  the  rest  of  Latium  is  so  completely 
unconcerned  in  this  conflict.  The  contest  does  not  go  beyond 
Rome  and  Alba ;  the  rest  of  Latium  vanishes  out  of  sight.  But, 
if  Alba  Longa  was  really  the  capital  of  the  Latin  League,  its 
destruction  aftected  the  wdiole  constitution  of  the  League,  and  it 
is  not  credible  that  the  rest  of  the  confederate  towns  would  have 
looked  upon  this  event  without  taking  any  part  in  it.  In  short, 
whoever  regards  the  traditional  narrative  of  Alba  Longa's  fall,  not 
in  a  sort  of  half  dream,  or  state  of  somnambulism,  but  with  a  sober 
and  practical  estimate  of  the  circumstances,  their  connexion,  their 
possibility  and  probability,  cannot  for  a  moment  doubt  that  he  has 
no  history  before  him,  but  only  tradition  mixed  with  invention. 

"Xo  human  acuteness  can  of  course  now  discover  from  what 
causes  and  under  wdiat  circumstances  the  downfall  of  Alba  occurred. 
We  can  only  conjecture  that  the  destruction  of  the  former  capital 
of  Latium  was  the  result  of  a  conflict  which  must  have  struck  deep 
into  the  relations  of  the  Latin  League.  By  w^hom  Alba  was  de- 
stroyed also  remains  uncertain.  Xiebuhr  assumes  by  Eome,  in 
common  with  the  surrounding  Latins  ;  yet  holds  it  to  be  possible 

^  Dionys.  iii.  31. 


^    \ 


204 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


that  Eome  had  no  part  at  all  in  it ;  that  the  Latins  alone  destroyed 
Alba,  and  that  the  Albans  sought  refuge  at  Eome,  and  were  there 
received  as  fugitives. ^  The  latter  assumption  appears  to  us  by  far 
the  more  probable  ;  seeing  that  the  Albans  settled  at  Eome  were 
incorporated  as  one  of  the  tribes  of  the  Eoman  people,  and  that, 
at  least  according  to  tradition,  they  appear  to  have  been  represented 
from  the  beginning  in  the  order  of  knights.  According  to  the 
law  of  conquest  of  those  times,  a  conquered  people  would  not  have 
been  so  treated. 

*'  Moreover,  if  Eome  was  really  a  colony  of  Alba  Longa,  as 
tradition  says,  the  razing  of  it  was,  according  to  the  mode  of  think- 
ing of  the  whole  ancient  world,  a  sort  of  parricide  which  we  cannot 
suspect  so  pious  a  people  as  the  ancient  Eomans  to  have  been 
capable  of  committing ;  and  the  more  revolting,  as,  allowing  that 
Mettius  Fuffetius  was  a  traitor,  Alba  itself  was  not  implicated  in 

his  crime." 

We  do  not  attach  so  much  weight  as  Schwegler  does  himself  to 
the  reasons  which  he  brings  forward  for  disputing  the  tradition 
respecting  the  fall  of  Alba  Longa.  The  question  as  to  whether 
Eome  would  have  been  able  to  reduce  Alba  depends  on  their 
relative  strength,  which  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining,  except 
so  far  as  tradition  may  throw  some  lights  upon  it.  But  as  the 
whole  Alban  population  could  be  settled  on  the  Cselian  Hill,  Alba 
could  not  have  been  a  very  large  and  important  place.  The  same  fact 
is  another  proof  of  the  very  small  number  of  inhabitants  contained 
in  these  primitive  towns.  We  may  admit  that  Eome  under  Tullus 
Hostilius  was  probably  not  remarkable  for  architectural  beauty,  to 
which  Schwegler  seems  to  allude  in  talking  of  the  Tarquinian 
foundations,  though  the  Curia  Hostilia  shows  that  it  was  beginning 
to  make  some  progress  even  in  this  direction  ;  but  military  strength 
does  not  depend  on  this  circumstance.  The  Sabine  union  would 
have  been  a  source  of  great  power ;  that  it  was  so,  we  have  already 
seen,  from  the  respect  in  which  Eome  was  held  by  her  neighbours, 
so  that  during  the  reign  of  Numa  none  cared  to  attack  her.  And 
though  that  long  peace,  as  Schwegler  observes,  must  have  pre- 
vented her  from  making  any  addition  to  her  strength  from  without, 

1  Niebuhr  draws  this  conclusion  from  the  circumstance  that,  after  the  de- 
struction of  xVlba,  it  is  not  the  Romans  but  the  Prisci  Latini  who  are  in  pos- 
session of  the  Alban  territory  ;  and  it  was  here,  at  the  fountain  of  Ferentina, 
that  they  thenceforth  held  their  assemblies. 


IV 


■■h 


:,S  ■' 


FALL   OF   ALBA   EX.VMINED. 


20 


o 


it  must  have  wonderfully  developed  her  resources  within.  The 
increase  of  population,  and  also  of  wealth,  must  have  been  large 
and  rapid.  If,  as  Schwegler  admits,  Ancus  JMarcius,  the  successor 
of  Tullus,  could  reduce  the  greater  part  of  Latium  only  thirty 
or  forty  years  afterwards,  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for 
doubting  that  Tullus  might  have  been  able  to  conquer  a  single 
Latin  city.  This  conquest,  and  the  transplantation  of  the  Albans 
to  Eome,  would  have  facilitated  the  success  of  Ancus,  not  merely 
by  removing  one  obstacle  out  of  the  way,  but  also  by  actually  in- 
creasing the  Eoman  strength  in  the  same  proportion.  It  was  so 
much  taken  from  the  Latins,  and  so  much  added  to  Eome.  It  is, 
therefore,  a  highly  natural  incident  in  the  history,  and  renders  the 
subsequent  conquests  of  Ancus  all  the  more  probable. 

Schwegler  endeavours  to  throw  a  doubt  upon  the  fall  of  Alba, 
by  placing  it  in  a  different  light  from  that  in  which  tradition  pre- 
sents it  to  us.  He  ignores  altogether,  in  his  critical  remarks  just 
quoted,  the  fact  that  Alba,  before  its  destruction,  had  become  sub- 
ject to  Eome,  through  the  event  of  the  combat  between  the  Horatii 
and  Curiatii.  He  views,  indeed,  the  tradition  of  that  combat  as 
merely  symbolical,  for  which,  as  we  have  shown,  he  has  no  sufficient 
grounds.  For  while  he  admits  that  there  is  no  a  priori  impro- 
bability in  it,  he  at  the  same  time  ignores  the  monuments  which 
attested  it ;  and  he  grounds  his  symbolical  interpretation  on  a  cir- 
cumstance which  has  no  true  historical  foundation.  To  view  the 
relations  between  Eome  and  Latium  fairly,  we  must  view  them  in 
the  connexion  in  which  they  are  presented  to  us  by  tradition ;  first, 
the  subjugation  of  Alba  by  Eome  ;  then  its  destruction  by  Tullus, 
caused  by  the  treachery  of  Mettius,  and  the  transference  of  its 
inhabitants  to  Eome ;  finally,  in  the  next  reign,  the  wars  of  the 
Eomans  with  the  Latins. 

In  pursuance  of  this  misrepresentation,  Schwegler  makes  Horatius 
merely  ride  into  Alba  with  his  cavalry  and  communicate  the  king's 
orders  ;  adding,  "  nobody  thinks  of  resistance."  But  it  would 
have  been  a  great  deal  more  extraordinary  if  the  Albans  had 
thought  of  resistance;  for  Schwegler  suppresses  two  somewhat 
important  facts— that  Tullus  had  surrounded  and  disarmed  their 
army,  and  put  their  dictator  and   general,  Mettius  Futfetius,   to 

death. 

The  story  of  the  first  encounter  between  the  Eomans  and  Albans 
also  throws  some  light  upon  the  relations  of  Alba  to  the  what  is 


« 


Tii* 


206 


HISTORY    OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


called  the  Latin  League,  and  therefore  we  cannot  suffer  its  considera- 
tion to  be  omitted  here  in  its  connexion  with  the  whole  story. 
Mettius  Fuffetius,  in  his  interview  with  TuUus  before  the  combat, 
evidently  does  not  reckon  on  the  least  support  from  the  Latins  in 
case  of  Alba  being  attacked  by  the  Etruscans.  He  does  not  once 
mention  them,  but  considers  that  the  whole  brunt  of  such  an  attack 
would  have  to  be  borne  by  Eome  and  Alba.  This  would  lead  us 
to  suppose  that  the  Latin  League,  like  the  Greek  Amphictyonies, 
was  rather  merely  a  recognition  that  the  cities  composing  it 
were  of  the  same  race  and  religion,  than  a  confederation  for 
political  purposes.  This  recognition  consisted  in  the  performance 
of  certain  established  religious  rites  in  the  temples  of  Alba 
Longa ;  which  was  thus,  as  well  as  from  the  circumstance  that 
many  of  the  Latin  cities  were  her  colonies,  regarded  as  the  metro- 
polis of  Latium. 

This  view  derives  some  confirmation  from  the  fact  that  Tullus, 
who  was  not  a  very  religious  prince,  but  ratlier  decidedly  the 
reverse,  should  have  spared  the  Alban  temples.  This  was  a  stroke 
of  policy.  He  avoided  provoking  the  anger  of  the  other  Latin 
cities  by  their  destruction.  Xor  did  he  attempt  to  occupy  the 
town  as  a  Eoman  colony.  Instead  of  this  he  conveys  the  in- 
habitants to  Eome,  leaving  the  temples  and  free  access  to  them,  so 
that  the  Prisci  Latini  are  subsequently  found  there,  holding  their 
assemblies  as  usual. 

JSTor,  even  allowing  that  the  Latin  League  was  decidedly  politi- 
cal, does  it  follow  that  one  of  its  cities  may  not  have  been  engaged 
in  a  private  war  without  involving  the  rest.  Eome  was  engaged 
many  years  in  wars  with  Yeii  without  the  other  Etruscan  cities 
interfering ;  nay,  not  even  to  avenge  her  fall.  There  is  something 
in  the  nature  of  these  ancient  leagues  that  we  do  not  sufficiently 
understand  to  be  able  to  draw  an  argument  from  them  against  the 
truth  of  the  history. 

Moreover,  by  the  treaty  between  Alba  and  Eome  after  the  com- 
bat of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii,  Alba  had  placed  herself  at  the  dis- 
posal of  Eome,  had  alienated  herself  from  the  Latin  League,  and 
had  deprived  the  Latins  of  all  pretence  for  interfering,  even  had 
they  been  so  inclined. 

It  may  be  added  that  one  of  the  reasons  Avhy  the  Latins  did  not 
come  to  the  rescue  of  the  Albans  may  have  been  that  Tullus  had 
made  a  treaty  with  them,  as  appears  from  a  passage  in  Livy's 


9 


FALL   OF   ALBA   EXAMINED. 


207 


1  k' 


%»,- 


;■'' 

n 


,\' 


account  of  the  reign  of  Ancus  INIarcius.^     This  treaty  was  most 
probably  the  sequel  and  result  of  the  submission  of  Alba. 

There  is  no  ground  whatever  but  conjecture  for  Niebuhr's 
assumption  that  Alba  was  destroyed  by  the  Latins.  The  old 
tradition,  sup])orted  by  the  testimony  of  historians,  is  infinitely 
more  probable.  Yet  Schwegler,  though  he  adopts  this  hypothesis, 
that  the  I,atins  destroyed  their  own  metropolis,  makes  it  an 
argument  against  the  history  that  they  are  not  represented  as 
having  defended  it !  Truly,  if  some  of  these  critics  had  written 
the  history  of  Eome  it  would  not  have  been  so  consistent  as  it  is. 

Xor  can  we  reconcile  his  surprise  that  the  Albans  were  so 
leniently  treated,  and  even  admitted  to  the  honours  of  Eome,  with 
his  following  observation  that  Alba  was  not  implicated  in  the 
treason  of  its  dictator,  and  that  therefore  the  proceeding  of  Tullus 
was  a  revolting  act  of  parricide.  Tullus  was  clearly  aware  of  the 
distinction  between  the  leader  and  his  people.  He  had  stated  it 
in  his  speech  on  the  morning  following  the  battle.  His  whole 
conduct  was  political.  He  did  not  choose  to  leave  a  town  so  close 
on  his  flank  whose  conduct  might  be  dubious :  but  he  had  no  cause 
for  anger  against  the  inhabitants  ;  he  therefore  transferred  them  to 
Eome,  and,  following  the  precepts  and  example  of  Eomulus,  by 
which  Eome  ultimately  became  so  great,  he  gave  them  the  privileges 
of  Eoman  citizens.  The  history  is  highly  consistent.  Tullus 
acquires  the  right  of  sovereignty  over  Alba  by  the  result  of  the 
combat  between  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii,  and  the  treaty  between 
Eome  and  Alba,  which  depended  on  it.  But  finding  that  he  could 
not  rely  upon  this  sovereignty,  that  it  lay  at  the  mercy  and  caprice 
of  any  treacherous  commander,  he  did  wdiat,  under  the  circum- 
stances, he  was  perfectly  justified  in  doing ;  he  insured  his 
sovereignty  by  transferring  the  Albans  to  Eome. 

The  story  of  Eome  having  been  a  colony  of  Alba  we  have  already 
disposed  of,  and  therefore  of  tlie  argument  about  the  impiety  of 
the  Eoman  people  in  destroying  it.  Instead  of  any  argument  being 
drawn  from  that  story  against  the  truth  of  these  transactions  of 
Tullus,  these  transactions,  on  the  contrary,  are  only  another  proof 
of  the  falsehood  of  the  story.  In  the  time  of  Tullus  it  was  not, 
perhaps,  even  invented.  No  inference  on  this  head  can  be  drawn 
from  the  speeches  in  Livy ;  since  it  was  customary  with  the  best 
ancient  historians,  even  Thucydides  for  example,  to  insert  speeches 

1  "  Latini,  cum  qiiihus,  regiiante  Tullo,  ictiim  foedus  erat."~Lib.  i.  32. 


,:J;  •■ 


208 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


FALL   OF   ALBA   EXAMINED. 


209 


which  were  assuredly  never  delivered,  or  at  all  events  not  in  the 
form  in  which  we  read  them. 

While  Schwegler  helieves  in  the  existence  and  destruction  of 
Alba,  but  not  in  the  way  recorded  by  history,  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis, 
perhaps  more  consistently,  but  ^VQ  think  not  more  reasonably, 
doubts  its  existence  altogether. 

"  Kiebuhr  considers,"  writes  that  author,^  "  the  fact  of  the  de- 
struction of  Alba,  in  the  reign  of  Tullus  Hostilius,  to  be  historical. 
He  nevertheless  rejects  the  circumstances  of  the  received  account ; 
for  he  conjectures  either  that  Eome,  in  conjunction  with  the  Latin 
towns,  took  Alba,  and  divided  the  conquered  territory  and  people  ; 
or  that  Alba  was  destroyed  by  the  Latins,  not  by  Eome.  {Hist. 
vol.  i.  p.  350  seq.)  That  the  Romans,  from  the  dawn  of  their  his- 
toriography, believed  in  the  former  existence  of  a  city  of  Alba,  on 
a  site  marked  by  an  extant  temple  of  Yesta,  and  that  they  regarded 
it  as  the  metropolis  of  Rome,  may  be  considered  as  certain.  It  is 
possible  that  the  connexion  may  have  been  real,  and  that  its 
memory  may  have  been  preserved  by  annual  rites  performed  under 
the  direction  of  the  Roman  state.  At  the  same  time  it  is  difficult 
to  affirm  that  the  historical  existence  of  a  city  near  the  Alban  lake, 
said  to  have  been  demolished  in  the  year  6G 5  B.C.  rests  on  a  sure 
basis  of  evidence.  We  must,  in  order  to  be  satisfied  on  this  point, 
suppose  that  the  memory  survived  its  downfall  about  four  centuries 
and  a  half,  before  it  passed  from  oral  tradition  into  written  history. 
With  respect  to  the  internal  evidence,  the  wars  of  Tullus  Hostilius 
present  nothing  which  offends  the  laws  of  probability ;  but  the 
entire  story  of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii,  including  the  murder  of 
the  sister,  has  the  air  of  romance ;  and  the  account  of  the  death 
of  Tullus  by  lightning  is  avowedly  related  as  an  example  of  the 
direct  interposition  of  Jupiter." 

On  this  we  will  observe  that  it  may  at  least  be  regarded  as 
certain  that  where  the  temples  stood  there  must  once  have  been  a 
city  :  first,  because  temples  dedicated  to  Vesta  were  not  erected  in 
solitary  isolated  places  but  in  towns ;  secondly,  because  the  remains 
of  the  walls  of  an  ancient  city  may  still  be  seen  at  the  spot  where 
Alba  Longa  is  reputed  to  have  stood.^  That  this  does  not  absolutely 
prove  it  to  have  been  Alba  Longa  we  will  admit;  but  it  must  have 

1  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  463. 

2  See  Mr.  Biuibury's  article,  "Alba  Longa,"  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Anc.  Geogr. 

vol.  i.  p.  88. 


'■■* 


.2? 
J- 


& 


i' 


— .*• 


it* 


I 


f-rt 


-»jr. 


'  ■-«•; 


/« 


been  a  Latin  city,  and  if  it  was  not  Alba  Longa,  we  cannot  even 
conjecture  what  else  it  could  have  been.  That  Roman  history 
consisted  of  nothing  but  oral  tradition  till  the  first  literary  histo- 
rians put  it  into  writing  about  two  centuries  B.C.  is  a  point  of 
course  on  which  we  are  completely  at  issue  with  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis, 
and  which  we  need  not  here  touch  upon  again.  But,  even  had  there 
been  no  written  history,  a  temple  with  a  regular  service  attached 
to  it  would,  we  think,  have  been  its  own  record  among  any  people 
that  had  continued  to  inhabit  the  same  city,  and  had  not  dege- 
nerated into  perfect  barbarism.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  himself  seems 
to  allow  this  when  he  observes  that  the  memory  of  the  connexion 
between  Rome  and  Alba  "may  have  been  preserved  by  annual 
rites  performed  under  the  direction  of  the  Roman  state." 

Whether  the  story  of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii  be  a  romance  we 
have  already  considered ;  the  account  of  the  death  of  Tullus  we 
will  examine  presently. 

The  twelfth  and  thirteenth  sections  of  Schwegler's  twelfth  book 
we  need  not  examine.  They  consist  of  an  attempt  to  prove  that 
the  third  stem-tribe  of  the  Roman  people,  that  of  the  Luceres, 
with  the  knights  selected  from  it,  consisted  of  the  Albans  trans- 
planted to  Rome,  and  did  not  therefore  exist  before  the  time  of 
Tullus  Hostilius.  Consequently  these  sections  affect  not  the  funda- 
mental credibility  of  the  early  Roman  history ;  rather  in  fact  they 
assume  it ;  for  they  suppose  the  existence  of  three  tribes  and  the 
transplantation  of  the  Albans  to  Rome  :  only  they  would  assign  a 
difierent  origin  to  the  third  tribe  from  that  handed  down  by  tradi- 
tion. It  is  an  attempt  not  to  confute,  but  to  alter,  Roman  history 
in  a  way  inconsistent  with  the  testimony  of  all  the  ancient  writers. 
We  shall  tlierefore  content  ourselves  with  saying,  especially  as  we 
have  before  touched  upon  this  subject,  that  Schwegler  advances 
nothing  in  these  sections  that  might  not  be  very  easily  answered. 

We  now  return  to  the  course  of  the  history. 

LAST   WARS   AND   DEATH   OF   TULLUS. 

Meanwhile,  Rome  grew  apace  through  the  ruin  of  Alba. 
The  number  of  the  inhabitants  was  doubled,  and  for  their 
accommodation  the  Cnelian  Hill  was  included  in  the  city.  In 
order  to  render  this  new  quarter  more  popular,  Tullus  chose 
it  as  a  site  for  a  palace,  and  fixed  his  residence  there.     He 


m 
ft*.  Sr* 


210 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  ROME. 


ill.- 


WARS   OF  TULLUS   HOSTILIUS. 


211 


appears  to  have  previously  lived  upon  the  Velia  ;^  and  this 
circumstance  is  sometimes  absurdly  brought  forward  as  a 
contradiction  to  the  account  of  Livy  and  Dionysius,  that  he 
built  a  palace  on  the  Cselian  ;  as  if  he  must  not  have  had 
some  dwelling  before  the  destruction  of  Alba.^  And  in  order 
that  the  patrician  class  should  be  increased  proportionally  with 
the  increase  of  the  people,  Tullus  elected  into  it  the  chief 
Alban  families  :  the  Tullii,  Servilii,  Quinctii,  Geganii,  Curiatii, 
and  Clcelii.^ 

The  Senate  being  thus  increased,  Tullus  built  a  temple  for 
their  accommodation,  which  continued  to  bear  the  name  of 
Curia  Hostilia  down  to  the  time  of  our  fathers.*  And  in  order 
that  all  ranks  in  the  state  might  receive  some  addition  from 
the  new  population,  he  chose  ten  troops  of  knights  from  among 
the  Albans.  He  filled  up  the  old  legions  in  the  same  manner, 
and  enrolled  new  ones. 

Eelying  on  this  augmentation  of  force,  Tullus  declared  war 
against  the  Sabines,  a  nation,  in  those  times,  second  only  to 
the  Etruscans  in  military  power.  Injuries  had  been  inflicted 
on  both  sides,  and  reparation  demanded  in  vain.  Tullus 
complained  that  certain  Eoman  merchants  had  been  arrested 
in  open  market  at  the  fane  of  Feronia,  a  sanctuary  in  the 
territory  of  Capena,  not  far  from  Soracte,  where  a  kind  of  fair 
of  the  neighbouring  peoples  appears  to  have  been  held.  The 
Sabines,  on  their  side,  asserted  that  some  of  their  people,  who 

^  Varro  ap.  Non.  p.  531 ;  Cic.  Rep.  ii.  31  ;  Solin.  i.  22. 

2  Liv.  i.  30  ;  Dionys.  iii.  1  ;  cf.  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  574,  Anm.  3. 

3  There  is  some  little  difference  here  between  the  accounts  of  Livy  (i.  30) 
and  Dionysius  (iii.  29).  Dionysius  substitutes  the  Julii  for  the  Tullii ;  calls 
the  Quinctii,  Quintilii,  and  adds  another  family,  the  Metilii,  who  are  unknown 
to  the  Roman  Fasti.  Of  the  Julii  we  have  already  spoken  (above,  p.  117), 
where  they  appear  among  the  original  followers  of  Romulus.  It  seems  pro- 
bable, however,  that  they  were  originally  from  Alba  Longa,  but  through  its 
colony,  Bovillae  ;  where  was  discovered  an  ancient  altar,  with  the  following 
inscription  ; — "  Vediovei  patrei  genteiles  Juliei,  leege  Albana  dicata  "  (Orelli, 
Corp.  Insc.  No.  1287).  See  on  this  somewhat  curious  subject,  Tac.  Ann.ii.  41, 
xi.  24,  XV.  23  ;  Suet.  Oct.  100  ;  Klausen,  ^neas,  ii.  1086  ;  Gell,  Topog.  of 
Rome,  p.  124  ;  Ritschl,  Monum.  Epigr.  Tria,  1852,  p.  29  ;  Nibby,  Dintornidi 
Roma,  t.  i.  p.  302,  seq.  ;  Orelli,  Corp.  Insc.  Nos.  119  and  2252  ;  Schwegler, 
B.  i.  S.  575,  Anm.  2. 

*  Livy  is  speaking  of  his  own  time. 


m 


\ 
t 


had  previously  taken  refuge  in  the  Asylum  at  Eome,  had  been 
detained  there.  Such  were  the  causes  given  out  for  the  war. 
The  Sabines,  who  too  well  remembered  that  part  of  their 
force  had  been  estabhshed  at  Eome  by  Tatius,  and  that  the 
Eoman  state  had  likewise  been  lately  increased  by  the  addi- 
tion of  the  Alban  population,  began  to  look  around  for  ex- 
ternal assistance.  Etruria  was  nearest  to  them,  and  the 
Veientines  were  the  nearest  of  the  Etruscans.  Hence  they 
drew  some  volunteers ;  for  many  of  the  Veientines  had 
a  grudge  against  Eome  from  the  recollection  of  the  former 
wars ;  and  some  vagabonds  of  the  destitute  class  were  even 
enlisted  for  pay.  But  they  were  not  publicly  aided  by  the 
state  ;  and  Veii  preserved  inviolate  the  truce  she  had  entered 
into  with  Eome. 

Active  preparation  for  war  was  now  made  on  both  sides, 
and,  as  the  issue  seemed  to  depend  on  wliich  should  first 
appear  in  the  field,  Tullus  took  the  initiative  l)y  invading  the 
Sabine  territory.  There  was  a  hard-fought  battle  at  the  place 
called  Silva  Malitiosa,  where  the  Eomans  were  superior,  not 
only  by  their  infantry,  but  also  more  particularly  through  the 
late  increase  in  their  cavalry.  The  Sabine  ranks  were  broken 
by  an  unexpected  charge  of  horse,  so  that  they  could  neither 
maintain  the  battle  nor  effect  a  retreat  without  exposing 
themselves  to  terrible  slaughter. 

According  to  the  narrative  of  Livy,  which  seems  rather 
abrupt,  the  Sabines  were  subdued  by  this  engagement.  That 
historian  seems  to  have  given  only  the  last  decisive  battle ; 
for,  according  to  Dionysius,"^  the  war  had  lasted  two  or  three 
years,  with  varying  success.  The  victory  over  the  Sabines 
not  only  threw  a  great  lustre  on  the  reign  of  Tullus,  and  on 
the  whole  Eoman  state,  but  also  increased  their  power.  Soon 
afterwards  we  find  mentioned,  for  the  first  time,  one  of  those 
portents  wliich  so  often  appear  in  Eoman  history,  the  notice 
of  which  could  hardly  have  been  preserved  except  through 
record.  The  king  and  Senate  were  informed  that  a  shower 
of  stones  had  fallen  on  Mons  Albanus.  The  matter  appeared 
incredible,  and  some  persons  were  therefore  despatched  thither 

^  Lib.  iii.  32,  seq. 

p2 


212 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   EOME. 


DEATH   OF   TULLUS. 


213 


to  ascertain  tlie  truth,  who  brought  back  word  that  they  had 
seen  the  stones  fall,  just  like  a  hailstorm.  They  seemed  also 
to  hear  a  loud  voice  from  the  grove  on  the  summit  of  the 
mountain,  commanding  that  the  Albans  should  perform  their 
sacred  rites  after  the  manner  of  their  forefathers.  This  they 
had  neglected  to  do,  and  seemed  indeed  to  have  quite  for- 
gotten them ;  for  as  if  they  had  left  their  gods  at  the  same 
time  as  their  country,  they  had  either  adopted  Eoman  rites, 
or,  out  of  spite  as  it  were  against  fortune,  had  wholly  aban- 
doned divine  worship.  The  Romans  also  made  a  public 
religious  festival  for  nine  days,  on  account  of  the  same  pro- 
digy ;  either  having  been  admonished  to  do  so  by  the  same 
celestial  voice  from  the  Alban  mount,  or  at  the  suggestion  of 
the  Haruspices.  It  is  certain,  at  least,  that  whenever  a  prodigy 
of  the  same  kind  was  announced,  a  festival  of  nine  days  was 
observed. 

Shortly  after,  Rome  was  attacked  with  a  pestilence.    Hence 
an  indisposition  for  military  service.     But  a  warlike  king  like 
Tullus  would  permit  no  respite,  especially  as  he  believed  that 
the  youth  was  more  healthy  in  the  field  than  at  home  :  till  at 
length  the  king  himself  was  seized  with  a  lingering  distemper. 
Together  with  his  body,  his  ferocious  mind  grew  so  debilitated, 
that  he  who  had  previously  held  nothing  to  be  less  worthy  of 
a  king  than  to  attend  to  sacred  matters,  became  all  at  once  so 
altered,  as  to  become  the  very  slave  of  all  kinds  of  super- 
stition, and  to  occupy  the  people  also  with  religious  obser- 
vances.    It  now  became  the  general  opinion  that  the  only 
method  of  escape  from  the  sickness  was  by  obtaining  peace 
and  pardon  from  the  gods,  thus  seeking  to  restore  the  same 
state  of  things  which  had  existed  under  Numa.     It  is  related 
that  the  king,  on  turning  over  the  Commentaries  of  Xuma, 
discovered  an  account  of  certain  secret  and  solemn  sacrifices, 
that  were  to  be  made  to  Jupiter  Elicius,  and  withdrew  into 
privacy  in  order  to  perform  them.    But  these  rites  were  either 
not  properly  adopted,  or  not  accurately  performed.     Not  only 
was  he  unfavoured  with  any  celestial  appearances,  but  through 
the  anger  of  Jupiter,  who  had  been  supplicated  with  a  false 
worship,  he  was  struck  with  lightning,  and  consumed  along 


with   his   house.     Tullus  had  reigned  two-and-thirty  years, 
with  a  great  warlike  reputation. 

Remarks. — Neither  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  nor  Schwegler,  makes  any 
observations  on  the  wars  of  Tullus  Hostilius  after  the  fall  of  Alba 
Longa,  and  we  may  therefore  conclude  tliat  nothing  can  be  said 
against  their  internal  probabihty  ;  indeed  this  is  acknowledged  by 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  in  a  passage  already  quoted.^  But  though  the 
account  of  these  wars,  as  given  by  Livy,  seems,  as  far  as  it  goes,  to 
be  genuine,  it  is  evidently  very  fragmentary.  It  appears  as  if  the 
history  of  them  had  come  down  in  a  very  mutilated  and  question- 
able shape,  and  that  Livy  had  selected  only  those  occurrences 
which  he  considered  to  be  certain,  though  it  is  evident  from  his 
own  testimony  that  Tullus  must  have  had  more  wars,  or,  at  all 
events,  that  they  must  have  been  of  longer  duration,  than  those 
which  he  records.  Thus,  for  instance,  he  remarks  that  Tullus 
during  the  pestilence  would  give  the  Roman  youth  no  respite  from 
war,2  though  he  mentions  none  in  which  they  might  have  been 
engaged  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Sabines,  which  preceded  the 
pestilence.  But  Dionysius,  besides  describing  the  Sabine  War  as 
lasting  through  several  campaigns,  as  we  have  already  said,  makes 
the  conclusion  of  it  followed  by  a  war  with  the  Latins.^  Fifteen 
years,  it  is  said,  after  the  overthrow  of  Alba,  Tullus  demanded  of 
the  Latins  that  in  right  of  that  conquest  they  should  acknowledge 
Rome  as  their  head,  in  place  of  Alba.  But  in  a  council  of  the 
League  held  at  the  Lacus  Ferentinee,'^  the  Latin  cities  resolved  not 
to  subject  themselves  to  Rome.  Upon  this  a  desultory  war  ensues, 
which  lasts  five  years  ;  but  it  is  a  merely  predatory  sort  of  warfare, 
without  any  pitched  battle  or  siege,  except  that  of  Medullia,  which 
place,  according  to  Dionysius,  had  been  made  a  Roman  colony  by 
Romulus,  but  had  revolted  back  to  the  Latins.  This  is  the  only 
event  of  the  war  at  all  memorable,  and,  as  Livy  places  it  under 
Ancus  instead  of  Tullus,  it  may  be  that  from  the  paucity  of  events 
of  the  rest  of  the  war,  he  did  not  think  it  worth  recording,  in  the 
shght  sketch  which  he  gives  of  the  early  history,^  though,  as  we 
have  said,  he  seems  to  hint  at  such  a  war. 

1  Above,  p.  208. 

^  "Nulla  tamen  ab  armis  quies  dabatur  a  bellicoso  rege. " — Lib.  i.  31. 

3  Lib.  iii.  24.  ^  Dionysius  places  it  at  Ferentinum,  ib. 

^  "  Legentium  plerisque  festiuantibus  ad  hsec  nova. " — Prmf. 


214 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   FvOME. 


ACCESSION   OF  ANCUS  MARCIUS. 


215 


Varro,  Pliny,  and  Festus  also  mention  a  war  of  Tullus  Hostilius 
with  the  Etruscans;  but  we  have  no  other  notice  of  it,  and  as 
these  writers  were  not  historians,  the  account  probably  originated 
in  some  mistake.^ 

The  reign  of  Tullus,  besides  the  acknowledgment  of  the  critics 
that  his  wars  have  the  internal  stamp  of  probability,  is  important 
with  regard  to  the  credibility  of  the  early  history,  as  being  the  first 
which  bears  evident  marks  of  contemporary  record.  This  is  con- 
sistent with  the  account  that  the  Pontifices  were  the  annalists  and 
historiographers  of  Eome,  and  that  they  were  instituted  by  ^N'uma, 
the  preceding  king.  We  have  abeady  pointed  out,  as  instances  of 
record,  the  treaty  between  the  Eomans  and  Albans,  with  the  names 
appended  of  the  Fetialis,  M.  Valerius,  and  of  the  Pater  Patratus, 
Sp.  Eusius  :  to  which  may  be  added  the  law  of  perduelUo,  the  list 
of  Alban  families  transferred  to  Rome,  the  prodigy  of  the  shower 
of  stones,  the  novendiale  sacrum  instituted  on  account  of  it,  and  the 
subsequent  pestilence.  The  three  last  are  precisely  the  kind  of 
events  which  would  have  been  recorded  in  the  Annales  Maximi, 
from  whicli  they  were  evidently  taken ;  the  preceding  ones  were 
probably  recorded  either  in  the  Commentarii  Pontificum  or  Libri 
Pontificii. 

The  only  other  event,  besides  the  combat  of  the  Horatii  and 
Curiatii,  which  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  finds  at  all  doubtful  in  the  history 
of  Tullus  Hostilius,  is  his  death.  That  the  manner  of  it  is  some- 
what mysterious  must  be  allowed ;  but  there  may  have  been 
reasons  of  state  for  keeping  it  so,  and  this  was  easily  efiected  when 
there  was  no  public  literature.  The  precise  manner  of  the  death 
of  Eichard  II.  is  unknown  ;  but  the  accounts  of  his  reign  are  not, 
therefore,  to  be  regarded  as  unhistorical.  One  account  represents 
Tullus  as  having  been  murdered,  and  his  house  burnt  down,  by  his 
successor,  Ancus  Marcius  ;2  "but  the  objection  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  is 
grounded  on  the  circumstance  that  his  death  by  lightning  is  "  re- 
lated as  an  example  of  the  direct  interposition  of  Jupiter."  There 
is  nothing,  however,  in  the  manners  of  those  times  which  renders 
the  belief,  and  consequently  the  assertion,  of  such  an  interposition 
incredible ;  on  the  contrary,  such  a  belief  is  quite  consistent  with 
them.      ;N"or  is   it  altogether  improbable   that  Tullus  may  have 

1  Var.  in  Fcrt.  p.  348,  Septimontio  ;   Plin.  H.  N.  ix.  63,  s.  136  ;   Macrob. 
Sat.  i.  6  ;   cf.  Sohwegler,  B.  i.  S.  577,  Anm.  2. 
*  Dionys.  iii.  35. 


■■^*. 


■■'Hi. 


'i> 


M- 


perished  as  related  in  some  attempt  to  draw  down  lightning  from 
heaven.  The  thunderstorms  at  Rome  are  frequent  and  heavy,  and 
very  different  from  those  which  we  experience  in  tliis  climate ;  and 
it  is  not  impossible  that  Numa,  with  his  science  and  his  devotion 
to  religion,  may  have  contrived  some  conducting  rod  by  which  to 
elicit  the  will  of  Jove,  as  manifested  by  his  bolts.  The  epithet  of 
"Elicius,"  applied  to  Jupiter  in  this  connexion,  seems  to  point 
that  way. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  history. 


SECTION  VIL 

ACCESSION  AND  WARS   OF  ANCUS   MARCIUS. 

On  the  death  of  Tullus,  the  goveminent  again  devolved  to 
the  Patres,  according  to  the  original  institution  ;  who  there- 
upon appointed  an  Interrex.  In  the  Comitia  held  by  this 
magistrate  the  people  appointed  Ancus  Marcius  king,  and  the 
Patres  ratified  their  choice.  Ancus  Marcius  was  the  grandson 
of  Numa  Pompilius  by  his  daughter.  It  was  natural,  there- 
fore, that  he  should  bear  in  mind  what  had  formed  the  peculiar 
glory  of  his  grandfather's  reign ;  and  as  he  observed  that  the 
preceding  reign,  though  glorious  in  other  respects,  had  been 
unprospcTOUS^'in  a  religious  point  of  view,  either  through  the 
neglect  of  sacred  rites  or  the  improper  performance  of  them, 
he^determined  at  the  very  commencement  of  his  reign  that  he 
could  do  nothing  better  than  restore  the  public  sacrifices  just 
as  they  had  been  instituted  by  Numa.  With  this  view  he 
directed  the  Pontifex  to  extract  from  the  Commentaries  of 
that  king  the  method  of  performing  them,  and  to  write  it 
down  on  an  album,  which  was  to  be  fixed  in  some  public 
place,  so  that  everybody  might  read  its  contents. 

These  proceedings  inspired  not  only  the  Romans,  who  were 
desirous  of  peace,  but  also  the  surrounding  cities,  with  the 
hope  that  Ancus  would  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  his  grand- 
father. The  Latins,  therefore,  began  to  take  courage,  and 
made  a  foray  into  the  Roman  territories ;  and  when  a  demand 
was  made  for  the  restitution  of  the  booty,  they  returned  a 


216 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  ROME. 


FORM  OF  DECLARING  WAR. 


217 


haughty  answer,  thinkmg  that  the  Eoman  king  would  pass 
his  reign  among  his  chapels  and  altars.  But  the  temper  of 
Ancus  was  a  mixture  of  that  of  I^uma  and  Eomulus.  And, 
though  he  thought  that  peace  had  been  a  necessity  for  his 
grandfather's  reign  over  a  new  and  ferocious  people,  yet  he 
was  of  opinion  that  he  should  not  be  easily  able  to  maintain 
the  peace  which  ]S"uma  had  enjoyed  wdth  impunity ;  that  his 
patience  would  be  worked  upon,  and  then  despised ;  and  that 
the  present  time  required  a  king  like  Tullus  rather  than  Numa. 
But,  as  his  grandfather  had  instituted  religious  ceremonies 
that  were  to  be  observed  in  peace,  he  determined  to  establish 
certain  warlike  ones.  With  this  view,  in  order  that  war  should 
be  declared  with  fixed  rites,  he  copied  from  the  ancient  nation 
of  the  ^quicoli  the  law^  still  observed  by  the  Fetiales  in 
demanding  restitution.  According  to  this,  the  ambassador  on 
arriving  at  the  frontier  of  the  people  from  whom  reparation  is 
demanded,  having  first  veiled  his  head  with  a  woollen  fillet, 
speaks  as  follows  : — "  Hear  me,  0  Jupiter  !  Hear  me,  boun- 
daries " — naming  the  nation  whose  limits  they  form — "  Hear 
me,  Equity!  I  am  the  public  messenger  of  the  Eoman  people  ; 
my  mission  is  a  just  and  pious  one,  therefore  let  my  words  be 
trusted."  Then  he  recites  his  demands,  and  calling  Jupiter 
to  witness,  says:  "H  it  is  impiously  and  unjustly  that  I 
demand  these  men  and  these  things  to  be  given  up  to  the 
Eoman  people  and  to  myself,  then  suffer  me  not  to  return 
to  my  country."  Such  is  the  demand,  which  he  makes  on 
crossing  the  boundaries  to  the  first  man  he  meets,  repeating 
it  wdien  he  passes  the  gate  of  the  city,  and  when  he  enters 
the  Forum ;  only  altering,  according  to  circumstances,  a  few 
words  of  its  tenor  and  of  the  form  of  the  oath.  If  those 
whose  restoration  he  demands  are  not  given  up  within  three 
and  thirty  days— for  such  is  the  usual  term— he  declares  war 
as  follows  :  "  Hear !  0  Jupiter,  and  thou,  Juno,  and  Quirinus, 
and  all  the  celestial,  all  the  terrestrial,  and  all  the  infernal 
gods,  hear  me !  I  call  you  to  witness  that  this  people" 
(which  he  then  names)  "  is  unjust,  performing  not  what  right 
requires.  But  concerning  these  matters  w^e  will  consult  at 
home  our  elders,  by  what  means  we  may  obtain  our  rights." 


=*S 


Then  the  envoy  returns  to  Eome  for  instructions ;  Avhere- 
iipon  the  king  immediately  takes  the  opinion  of  the  Senate, 
in  the  following  form  of  words  : — "  Eespecting  the  things,  the 
disputes,  and  the  causes  thereof,  the  Pater  Patratus  of  the 
Eoman  people  of  the  Quirites  hath  spoken  with  the  Pater 
Patratus  of  the  ancient  Latins,  and  with  the  ancient  Latins 
themselves — which  things  should  have  been  given  up,  done, 
and  paid  for,  but  which  they  have  neither  given  up,  done,  nor 
paid  for, — say,  what  is  your  opinion  ? "  Then  the  first  person 
whose  opinion  is  thus  asked,  replies :  "  I  consider  that  they 
should  be  recovered  in  pure  and  holy  w^arfare,  to  which  I 
consent  and  agree."  Then  the  rest  are  asked  in  turn  ;  and  if 
the  greater  part  of  those  present  are  of  the  same  opinion,  w^ar 
is  resolved  on.  Then  it  is  customary  that  a  Fetialis  should 
carry  to  the  boundaries  either  an  irondieaded  lance,  or  one 
burnt  at  the  top  and  bloody,  and  in  the  presence  of  not  less 
than  three  adult  persons,  should  say :  "  Whereas  the  peoples 
of  the  ancient  Latins,  and  the  ancient  Latins  as  individuals, 
have  done  certain  things,  and  committed  certain  offences 
against  the  Eoman  people  of  Quirites,  and  whereas  the 
Eoman  people  of  Quirites  hath  decreed  a  war  against  the 
ancient  Latins,  and  the  Senate  of  the  Eoman  people  of 
Quirites  hath  determined  on,  consented,  and  agreed  to  a  war 
with  the  ancient  Latins  ;  now,  therefore,  I  and  the  Eoman 
people  do  declare  and  make  war  upon  the  peoples  of  the 
ancient  Latins,  and  the  ancient  Latin  men  :  "  and  having  thus 
spoken,  he  hurls  the  lance  over  their  boundaries.  Such  was 
the  mode  in  which  reparation  was  demanded  from  the  Latins 
and  war  declared  against  them ;  and  the  custom  has  descended 
to  posterity. 

Then  Ancus,  having  relinquished  the  care  of  religion  to  the 
Flamens  and  other  priests,  and  having  enrolled  a  new  army, 
marched  forth,  and  took  by  assault  Politorium,  a  Latin  city;  and 
following  the  example  of  his  predecessors,  wdio  had  increased 
the  Eoman  state  by  receiving  into  its  bosom  its  conquered 
enemies,  he  transferred  the  whole  of  its  inhabitants  to  Eome. 
And  as  the  ancient  Eonians  occupied  the  Palatine,  the  Sabines 
the  Capitol  and  citadel,  and  the  Albans  the  Ceelian  Hill,  the 


218 


HISTOKY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


WARS   OF  ANGUS  MARCIUS. 


219 


Aventine  was  assigned  to  the  new  comers.  More  new  citizens 
were  not  long  afterwards  located  at  the  same  spot  through  the 
capture  of  Tellen^e  and  Ficana.  But  Politorium  had  to  be 
twice  reduced,  as  the  ancient  Latins  had  again  occupied  it 
after  its  desertion ;  and  for  this  reason  it  was  now  razed,  lest 
it  should  be  a  continual  receptacle  for  enemies.  The  whole 
brunt  of  the  Latin  War  centred  at  last  about  Medullia,  and 
was  waged  there  with  doubtful  and  varying  success.  For  the 
town  was  well  fortified,  and  defended  by  a  strong  garrison ; 
insomuch  that,  pitching  their  camp  in  the  open  field,  the 
Latin  army  sometimes  contended  with  the  Eomans  in  a 
regular  battle.  At  length,  making  an  effort  with  his  whole 
forces,  Ancus  defeated  them  in  the  field,  and,  having  captured 
a  vast  booty,  returned  to  Eome.  On  this  occasion  also  many 
thousand  Latins  were  received  into  the  city,  to  whom  habita- 
tions were  assigned  in  the  valley  of  Murcia,  so  as  to  connect 
the  Aventine  with  the  Palatine.  The  Janiculum  was  also 
added  to  the  city,  not  for  want  of  space,  but  for  fear  it  should 
be  seized  by  enemies  as  a  citadel.  It  was  then  connected 
with  the  city,  not  only  by  a  wall,  but  also,  for  the  convenience 
of  passing  thither,  with  a  wooden  bridge,  the  first  thrown  over 
the  Tiber.  The  Fossa  Quiritium  is  also  the  work  of  King 
Ancus,  no  trifling  defence  for  those  parts  of  the  city  which, 
from  the  level  nature  of  the  ground,  are  easy  of  access.  The 
city  was  thus  immensely  increased,  and  as  in  such  a  multitude 
of  men,  clandestine  crimes,  from  the  difficulty  of  detection, 
were  constantly  perpetrated,  in  order  to  repress  by  terror  this 
increasing  audacity,  a  prison  was  built  in  the  middle  of  the 
city  overhanging  the  forum.  Nor  was  it  the  city  alone  which 
increased  under  this  king,  but  also  its  territory  and  boundaries. 
For  the  Silva  Maesia  having  been  wrested  from  the  Veientines, 
the  Eoman  dominion  was  extended  to  the  sea :  Ostia  was 
built  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber,  and  salt-works  established 
round  about  it.  The  Temple  of  Jupiter  Feretrius  was  also 
enlarged,  on  account  of  the  splendid  successes  which  had  been 
obtained  in  war. 

Besides  the  wars  just  related,  which  are  taken  from  the 
narrative  of  Livy,  Ancus  Marcius  is  also  said  to  have  fought 


•"A 


against  Fidense,  which  had  revolted,  and  against  the  Sabines, 
who  had  twice  broken  the  treaty  made  with  King  Tullus.    These 
wars  are  related  by  Dionysius;i  but  they  contain  nothing  at 
all  remarkable  except  the  reported   capture   of  Fidenae  by 
means  of  a  mine ;  while  the  wars  with  the  Sabines  consist 
only  of  incursions,  without  a  single  pitched  battle  of  which  the 
place  is  named ;  though  they  suffered  so  much  at  the  hands 
of  the  Romans  that  they  were  obliged  to  sue  for  peace.   It  was 
probably  this  dearth  of  incidents  that  induced  Livy  to  omit  all 
notice  of  them,  as  they  would  have  made  no  figure  among  the 
warlike  annals  of  the  Eomans,  with  which  his  subsequent 
pages  were  to  be  filled.     As  we  have  seen,  however,  he  just 
drops  a  hint  of  a  war  with  the  Veientines,  by  mentioning  that 
the  M^sian  Forest  was  wrested  from  them,  and  the  Eoman 
Empire  extended  on  this  side  to  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber  and 
the  sea.     The  account  of  this  Yeientine  War  by  Dionysius^ 
must  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  supplement  to  Livy.    Accord- 
ing to  this,  the  Veientines  had  begun  the  war  by  an  incur- 
sion into  the  Eoman  territories.     Marcius  attacks  them  near 
Fidenee,  overthrows  them,  and  takes  their  camp  ;  for  which 
victory  he  celebrates  a  triumph.     Two  years  afterwards  the 
Veientines  again  break  the  treaty,  and   Ancus   once   more 
defeats  them  in  a  still  more  decisive  action  at  a  place  which 
Dionysius  calls  Alla3,  but  which  is  not  mentioned  by  any 
other  writer.     In  this  campaign  Tarquinius,  who  afterwards 
became  King  of  Eome,  achieved  great   distinction  as  com- 
mander of  the  cavalry.     He  had  also  served  in  some  of  the 
previous  wars.  Dionysius  also  mentions  a  war  with  the  Volsci, 
and  the  capture  of  Velitrte,  their  capital,  which  we  do  not 
hear  of  anywhere  else,  and  which  seems  hardly  probable. 

Tarquinius,  whom  we  have  just  mentioned,  was  an  active 
ambitious  man,  and  powerful  from  his  wealth,  who  settled 
himself  at  Eome,  in  the  hope  and  desire  of  obtaining  honour, 
which  there  was  no  means  of  acquiring  in  his  native 
town,  Tarquinii ;  for  there  was  he  born,  though  of  a  foreign 
family.  He  was  the  son  of  the  Corinthian  Demaratus  ;  who, 
bein<^  driven  from  home  by  political  faction,  had  chanced  to 


1  Lib.  iii.  cc.  39—42. 


2  Ibid.  c.  41. 


J'J-, 


220 


HISTORY   OF   THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


fix  his  abode  at  Tarquinii.  Here  he  toolc  a  wife,  who  bore 
him  two  sons,  Luciimo  and  Ariins.  Aruns  died  before  his 
father,  leaving  his  wife  pregnant ;  but  Lucumo  svirvived,  and 
became  the  heir  of  all  his  property.  Demaratus  had  died 
very  soon  after  Iiis  son  Aruns,  and,  being  ignorant  that  his 
daughter-in-law  was  in  the  family-way,  he  left  nothing  to  his 
posthumous  grandson  ;  to  whom  ,was  given,  on  account  of  his 
poverty,  the  name  of  Egerius.  ^Lucumo  was  elated  by  the 
enormous  wealth  of  which  he  had  thus  become  possessed,  and 
his  pride  was  further  stimulated  by  his  wife  Tanaquil,  who 
belonged  to  the  first  family  in  the  state,  and  was  not  disposed 
to  suffer  that  her  position  by  marriage  should  be  inferior  to 
that  which  she  claimed  by  birth.  But  there  was  no  prospect 
of  rising  at  Tarquinii,  as  the  Etruscans  despised  Lucumo  as 
the  son  of  a  foreign  exile.  Tanaquil  could  not  brook  this 
indignity,  and,  forgetting  all  love  for  her  country  provided 
she  could  see  her  husband  honoured,  she  formed  the  reso- 
lution of  migrating  from  Tarquinii.  Eome  seemed  to  be  the 
place  best  suited  to  such  designs.  Among  a  new  people, 
where  all  nobility  must  be  recently  acquired,  and  the  fruit  of 
valour,  some  place  would  be  found  for  a  brave  and  active 
man.  She  considered  that  the  Sabine  Tatius  had  reigned 
there  ;  that  Xuma  had  been  called  to  the  Eoman  throne  from 
Cures  ;  that  Ancus  himself  sprang  from  a  Sabine  mother,  and 
could  trace  his  pedigree  no  further  back  than  Numa.  It  was 
not  difficult  to  persuade  her  husband  to  fall  into  these  views, 
both  because  he  was  desirous  of  distinction,  and  because  Tar- 
quinii was  his  country  only  on  his  mother  s  side.  He  there- 
fore repaired  to  Eome  with  all  his  property.  He  was  travelling 
with  his  wife  in  an  open  carriage,  and  had  arrived  at  the 
Janiculum,  when  an  eagle,  swooping  gently  down,  carried  off 
his  cap.  The  bird  then,  with  much  clamour,  accompanying 
the  course  of  the  carriage,  as  if  it  had  been  dispatched  from 
heaven  on  this  mission,  at  length  replaced  the  cap  on  Lucumo's 
head,  and  took  its  flight  into  the  air.  Tanaquil,  who,  like 
most  of  the  Etruscans,  was  skilled  in  the  interpretation  of 
celestial  prodigies,  was  overjoyed  at  this  augury.  Embracing 
her  husband,  she  bade  him  raise  his  hopes  high,  seeing  from 


■■!•-" 
-If- 


•:'- 


■■?■ 

If 

Vv 

■■.^ 


TARQUINIUS   MIGRATES   TO   ROME. 


221 


.:«' 


K 


■9\ 


what  region  of  the  heavens,  and  from  what  god,  the  bird  was 
a  messenger ;  that  the  omen  was  manifested  on  the  highest 
part  of  him,  his  head;  that  the  bird  had  removed  a  mere 
human  ornament,  in  order  to  restore  it  by  divine  interposition. 
It  was  with  such  thoughts  and  hopes  that  they  entered  the 
city ;  and  having  procured  a  house  there,  Lucumo  assumed 
the  name  of  L.  Tarquinius  Priscus.  Here  he  attracted  the 
notice  of  the  Eomans,  as  well  from  his  wealth  as  from  the 
circumstance  of  his  being  a  stranger.  Nor  was  he  backward 
in  pushing  his  fortunes  by  conciliating  all  the  friends  he 
could,  by  his  affable  address,  by  the  banquets  which  he 
gave,  and  by  the  benefits  which  he  conferred.  At  length  his 
fame  reached  the  palace ;  and,  having  obtained  the  notice  of 
the  king,  by  a  skilful  use  of  this  opportunity,  and  by  dis- 
charging dexterously  and  liberally  the  offices  with  which  he 
w^as  entrusted,  he  soon  obained  so  large  a  share  of  the  royal 
confidence  and  friendship,  that  he  was  consulted  on  all  busi- 
ness, both  public  and  private,  both  foreign  and  domestic  ;  and 
at  last,  having  thus  been  proved  in  all  sorts  of  ways,  the  king 
appointed  him  by  will  the  guardian  of  his  children. 

Ancus  reigned  four  and  twenty  years  with  as  much  conduct 
and  glory,  both  in  peace  and  war,  as  any  of  the  former  kings. 

Eemarks. — '*We  have  already  observed,"  says  Schwegler,^  "that 
Ancus  is  the  reverse  of  Tullus  and  the  very  image  of  Numa.  In 
this  peculiar  character  he  cultivates  religion,  restores  the  neglected 
worship  of  the  gods,  brings  the  precepts  of  Xuma  again  into  force 
and  to  public  knowledge,  and  is  by  temper  peaceable  and  averse 
to  war.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the  fourth  king,  he  is  the  founder 
(Stifter)  of  the  plebs.  Hence  he  makes  war  upon  the  surrounding 
Latin  territory,  conquers  their  towns,  transplants  the  inhabitants 
to  Eome,  and  thus  lays  the  foundation  of  the  Eoman  plehs.  As 
creator  of  the  plehsy  Ancus  appears  also  as  their  patron,  just  as, 
later  on,  conquered  towns  and  provinces  w^ere  accustomed  to  choose 
their  conqueror  for  their  patron.  This  patronship  procured  him 
the  distinctive  character  of  a  *  citizen  king.*  Thus  he  is  called 
'  the  good  Ancus '  by  Ennius  (Ap.  Test.  p.  301,  Sos.)  ;  and  by 

1  Buch  xiii.  §  4. 


* 


tv,- 


222 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   ROME. 


Virgil  lie  is  described  as  'Nimium  gaiidens  popularibus  auris' 
(jEn.  vi.  817).  By  virtue  of  this  double  part  which  Ancus  Marcius 
has  to  play,  there  is  something  contradictory  in  his  natiu'e ;  he 
unites  disparate  qualities  ;  and  it  is  characteristic  of  this  double 
nature  that  he  founds,  or  more  accurately  regidates,  the  institution 
of  the  Fetiales,  or  the  ceremonies  of  conducting  war.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  the  old  tradition  discovered  in  the  name  of  Ancus 
Marcius  an  indication  of  this  two-fold  part,  and  on  this  ground 
made  Ancus  Marcius  the  fourth  Eoman  king.  For  as  the  name 
of  Marcius  expresses  the  spiritual  and  pontifical  character  of  the 
king,  so  also  might  be  found  in  the  name  of  Ancus  some  relation- 
ship to  the  father  of  the  working  class,  or  the  ^^ZeSs.  For  properly 
his  name  is  Martius,  and  is  commonly  written  Marcius,  because 
the  Gentile  name  of  the  Marcii,  who  traced  their  descent  from 
Ancus,  was  usually  so  written.  But  the  name  Martins  is  derived 
from  the  prophetic  god  Mars,  whose  oracles  were  delivered  at 
Tiora  Matiene  by  a  woodpecker.  The  name  Ancus  (comp.  the 
diminutive  ancilla)  signifies  *help,'  *  servant'  (Paul.  Diac.  p.  19, 
Ancillce  et  ibi,  Miiller;  Non.  p.  71,  Ancillantur),  and  thus  answers 
to  the  name  of  Servius,  that  of  the  other  plebeian  king.  But  the 
ancients  for  the  most  part  derive  his  name  dyKioy,  a  bracchio  adunco, 
or  because  he  was  deformed  in  the  elbow.  Viewed  in  this  way, 
the  figure  of  Ancus  Marcius  shows  itself  to  be  an  invention,  the 
product  of  historical  construction.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  king 
of  this  name  once  ruled  at  Eome  ;  but  that  he  was  just  the  fourth 
king,  and  played  just  the  part  which  tradition  attributed  to  him 
as  the  fourth  king,  must  be  decidedly  questioned." 

The  improbability  therefore  of  the  history  of  Ancus  arises  from 
two  causes.  The  firs't  of  these — that  he  is  the  very  image  of 
Numa — we  have  already  examined.^  The  second  cause  of  impro- 
bability attaches  not  to  Ancus  absolutely,  but  only  relatively; 
namely,  that  he  is  represented  as  the  fourth  king,  and  performs 
the  acts  which  he  does  as  the  fourth  king.  If  we  inquire  into  the 
nature  of  these  acts,  we  do  not  find  much  diff'erence  between  them 
and  those  of  his  predecessors.  Like  them,  he  institutes  some 
ceremonies,  wages  some  wars,  transfers  the  inhabitants  of  some 
conquered  towns  to  Eome.  This  is  all  that  ancient  authors  tell 
us  of  his  acts;  and  it  does  not  seem  to  affect  the  credibility  of 

^  Above,  p.  180,  seq. 


HISTORY  OF  ANCUS  EXAMINED. 


223 


sv 


them,  whether  they  should  have  been  done  by  the  first  king,  or 
the  fourth,  or  the  seventh. 

The  charge  of  improbabiUty,  however,  is  founded,  not  on 
anything  that  the  ancient  writers  tell  us,  but  on  a  theory  of 
Niebuhr's, — that  Ancus  Marcius  was  the  founder  of  the  plehs. 

On  which  we  shall  observe,  first,  that  to  call  him  their  founder 
seems  a  very  odd  conception,  and,  in  fact,  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
"VVe  can  conceive  of  Eomulus  founding  the  Senate,  the  Equites,  and 
even  the  Populus,  for  all  these  were  endowed  with  certain  rights 
and  privileges ;  but  to  found  the  plehs  is  to  found  a  negation.  The 
plebeians  having  no  civil  privileges  were  founded  only  by  nature, 
and  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  order. 

And  hence  falls  to  the  ground  the  idea  of  any  popularity  that 
Ancus  may  have  enjoyed  on  this  account.  For  as  the  plehs  could 
not  thank  him  for  their  foundation,  so  neither  could  they  have 
felt  grateful  to  him  for  any  privileges  bestowed  upon  them.  Ancus 
seems  to  have  gained  his  popularity  rather  for  remitting  his  own 
privileges  than  for  any  that  he  conferred.  Among  these  we  might 
mention  the  right  of  declaring  war.  Neither  Eomulus  nor  Tullus 
appears  to  have  consulted  the  Senate  on  such  occasions.  But  by 
the  Fetial  law  Ancus  referred  the  matter  to  the  Senate,  and  was 
governed  by  the  majority.  Cicero  also  tells  us  that  he  divided 
among  the  people  the  territory  which  he  had  taken,  and  made 
the  woods  on  the  sea-shore — which  he  had  captured  from  the 
Veientines — public  property.  ^  It  was  by  these  acts,  and  others 
perhaps  of  the  like  kind  that  have  not  come  down  to  us,  that 
Ancus  seems  to  have  gained  his  popularity ;  for  anything  that  he 
might  have  done  particularly  in  favour  of  the  j^/eSs,  as  a  class,  would 
probably  have  rendered  him  unpopular  with  the  other  orders. 
Hence  also  fall  to  the  ground  the  ingenious  speculations  founded 
on  the  name  of  Ancus.  That  the  name  of  Martins,  or  !Marcius, 
may  be  connected  with  Mars,  in  his  prophetic  character,  seems 
sufficiently  probable.  There  was  a  famous  soothsayer  of  that 
name  who  predicted  the  overthow  of  the  Eomans  at  Canna?.^ 
But  the  name  of  Marcius  borne  by  Ancus — which,  however, 
has  nothing  to  do  wdth  his  popularity — may,  we  think,  be  pro- 
bably accounted  for  in  a  more  simple  manner.  It  is  universally 
agreed  that  he  was  the  grandson  of  Numa  by  his  daughter ;  and 
though  Cicero,  in  a  passage  before  quoted,  says  that  the  name  of 

1  De  Rep.  ii.  18.  2  Liv.  xxv.  12. 


4«    * 


224 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


CONQUESTS   OF   ANGUS. 


225 


his  father  was  unknown,  yet  as  there  was  a  family  of  the  Marcii  at 
Eome,  who  seem  to  have  heen  in  favour  with  the  king,  since  he 
made  one  of  them  Pontifex,  it  is  no  extravagant  supposition  that 
he  may  have  given  his  daughter  to  one  of  them.  They  may  even 
have  been  related  to  I^uma,  as  they  bore  his  name.^  The  same 
passage  shows  that  Marcius  was  not  derived  in  this  instance  from 
Marsrbut  from  Marcus,  the  Pontifex  being  the  son  of  Marcus;  and 
so  Julius  comes  from  lulus,  and  Tullius  perhaps  from  TuUus. 

:N'or,  secondly,  was  it  under  Ancus  Marcius  that  a  plebeian 
population  first  began  to  exist.  Such  a  supposition  is  not  only 
contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  history  ;  it  is  also  contrary 
to  all  probability  that  a  state  like  Kome  should  have  existed 
a  century  without  a  plebeian  or  proletarian  class.  But  we  shall 
have  to  examine  this  whole  question  of  the  ^^Ze6s  presently,  when 
we  come  to  speak  of  the  Servian  constitution,  and  shall  therefore 
content  ourselves  with  observing  here  that  it  is  on  the  ground  of 
Ancus  having  been  their  creator  that  the  whole  charge  against  the 
history  rests.  He  is  said  to  have  been  invented,  as  the  fourth 
king,  as  their  creator ;  but  as  this  creation  is  itself  an  invention 
of  the  critics,  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  it  as  against  the 
ancient  writers,  who  ignore  such  a  creation;  nor  consequently 
against  the  probability  of  the  history. 

"  The   wars   with   the   neighbouring   Latin   states,"    continues 
Schwegler,2  "which  tradition  ascribes  to  Ancus  Marcius  are  certainly 
in  the  main  historical.     We  must  indeed  not  regard  the  circum- 
stances that  it  is  the  fourth  Eoman  king  who  wages  them,  that  they 
last  only  a  few  years,  and  are  ended  so  quickly  and  victoriously 
as  tradition  relates ;  they  probably  lasted  many  generations,  with 
varying  fortune.      Under  Tullus  Hostilius,  the   Roman  territory 
still  only  extends  to  the  fifth  mile-stone ;    and  yet  his  successor 
founds  Ostia  ;  the  conquest  of  the  whole  left  bank  of  the  Tiber 
falls  consequently  in  the  interval ;  an  addition  of  territory  so  con- 
siderable that  it  cannot  be  believed  to  have  been  the  fruit  of  a  few 
summer   campaigns.      But  the  kernel  of  these  traditions  may  be 
received  as  historical ;    namely,  that  the  Romans,  whose  original 
bounds  were  of  small  circumference,  may  have  conquered  in  time 
a  subject  district,  and  that  the  inhabitants  of  this  territory  formed 
the  foundation  of  the  Roman  plebs.     The  circumstance  that  at  a 

1  "Pontificem  deinde  Numam  Marcium,  Marci  filium,  ex  Patribus  legit."— 
Liv.  i.  20.  ^  Buch  xiii.  §  5. 


I 


&.■«?.-• 


very  early  period  we  no  longer  find  any  towns  in  the  triangle  which 
the  Appian  Way  makes  with  the  Tiber,  is  confirmatory  of  tbese 
traditions.     Some  must  certainly  have  existed  there  in  the  oldest 
times;  and  not  only  Ficana,  Tellenae,  Politorium,  but  also  more 
towns,  of  which  the  memory  has  not  been  preserved.     We  may 
trust  tradition  that  they  were  destroyed  by  the  Romans  at  an  early 
period,  in  order  to  deprive  the  conquered  district  of  any  military 
poi7its  d'appui.     Tradition  is  also  worthy  of  belief  in  placing  the 
extension  of  the  Roman  dominion  towards  the  sea,  and  the  con- 
quest of  the  banks  of  the  Lower  Tiber,  at  an  earlier  epoch  than 
the  conquest  of  the  towns  beyond  the  Anio,  which  is  ascribed  to 
Tarquinius    Priscus.      Policy   dictated   such  a   course,    and   it   is 
therefore  supported  by  internal  probability.     Only  it  appears  in- 
credible that  the  inhabitants  of  the  conquered  district  should  have 
been  transplanted  to  Rome.      For  it  would  not  only  have  been 
highly  unpractical  to  settle  the  plebeians  at  such  a  distance  from 
their  lands,  but  also  impolitic  to  plant  them  at  one  point,  and  to 
give  them  possession  of  a  strong  hill  inside  the  city ;  while  they 
would  have  been  much  less  dangerous  if  dispersed  over  the  level 
country.     Not  can  we  see  very  well  where  the  *many  thousand 
Latins,'  whom  Livy  describes  as  transplanted  to  Rome,  could  have 
found  room  there.     Tradition  says,  on  the  Aventine  and  in  the 
Murcian  valley.     But,   according  to  more  credible  tradition,  the 
Aventine  was  first  assigned  to  the  city  plebs  as  a  dwelling-place  and 
for  building  their  houses  by  the  Icilian  law.     Till  that  time  it  was 
common  land  ;  nay,  even,  as  Dionysius  relates,^  it  was  for  the  most 
part  still  wood.     And  in  the  valley  of  Murcia,   the  narrow  vale 
which  separates  the  Aventine  from  the  Palatine,  and  which  was 
afterwards  converted  into  the  Great  Circus,  there  was  only  room  for 
a  few  hundred  small  houses.     On  these  grounds  it  is  probable  that 
by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  plebs  remained  in  the  occupation  of 
their  farms.     We  must  draw  the  same  conclusion  from  the  circum- 
stance that  the  plebeian  Comitia,  or  Comitia  Tributa,  were,  according 
to  ancient  custom,  held  on  the  nundince  on  which  the  countrymen 
came  into  town  for  the  corn-market ;  and  that  for  the  same  reason 
every  law  proposed  must  be  announced  three  nundince ,  or  market 
days,  before  it  was  discussed,  and  must  be  publicly  exhibited  for 
this  period. 

*'  Only  this  much  is  correct,  that  the  Aventine  and  the  valley  of 

1  Lib.  X.  31. 
Q 


226 


IIISTOPwY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


Miircia  were  at  a  later  period  plebeian  quarters.  And  it  was  this 
circumstance  that  gave  occasion  to  the  tradition  that  the  ^9^e6s 
which  dwelt  there  was  compelled  to  do  so  by  the  fourth  king. 

"Besides  the  wars  of  conquest  which,  according  to  concordant 
tradition,  Ancus  waged  with  the  surrounding  Latins,  and  which  in 
the  main  may  pass  for  historical,  Dionysius  represents  him  as  also 
fighting  with  the  Fide  nates,  the  Sabines,  the  Yolsci,  and  the 
Veientines.  Of  these  wars  the  same  cannot  be  said;  they  are 
a  literary  invention.  The  capture  of  Fidense  especially,  which  is 
effected  by  a  mine,  resembles  the  capture  by  Eomulus  of  this  so 
frequently-taken  town.  It  is  copied  from  the  historical  time,  and 
the  capture  of  Fidense  by  means  of  a  mine  by  the  Dictator  Servilius, 

A.U.C.  319." 

On  this  we  will  observe  that  if  it  took  the  Romans  "many 
generations,"  which,  we  suppose,  must  mean  at  least  two  centuries, 
to  conquer  Latium,  how  many  must  be  allowed  for  the  conquest  of 
all  Italy  1  and  how  many  for  the  conquest  of  all  the  world  1 

If  we  divide  the  history  of  Eome  from  its  foundation  to  the 
establishment  of  the  empire  into  three   periods   of  rather   more 
than   two   centuries   each, — namely,   from   its  foundation   to   the 
expulsion  of  the  kings,  a  period  of  nearly  two  centuries  and  a  half, 
according  to  the  common  chronology;  from  the  expulsion  of  the 
kings  to  the  year  B.C.  264,  another  period  of  something  less  than 
two  centuries  and  a  half;  and  from  B.C.  2G4  to  B.C.  44,   a  still 
shorter  period, — we  shall  find  that  in  the  first  of  these  periods 
Eome  had  subdued,  but  not  finally,  the  greater  part  of  Latium,  an 
extent  of  territory  about  equal  to  a  middling-sized  English  county; 
that  in  the  second  she  had  subdued  the  whole  of  Italy ;  and  that 
in  the  third  she   had  conquered  the  greater  part  of  the  known 
world.     !N"ow  if  any  one  were  asked  which  was  the  most  extra- 
ordinary of  these  achievements  he  might  perhaps  waver  between 
deciding  for  the  second  or  third,  which  are  facts  established  on 
the  best  historical  evidence ;  but  nobody,  we  think,  would  decide 
for  the  first,  though  even  that,  in  regard  to  other  nations,  may 
be  considered  a  somewhat  extraordinary  achievement.      But  the 
Eomans  were  an  extraordinary  people.     We  must   not   measure 
their  history  by  that  of  other  nations,  and  sit  down  in  our  closets 
and  say  what  they  might  have  done,  or  what  they  might  not  have 
done.     The  impulse  given  by  Grecian  blood  and  intellect  to  Sabine 
sturdiness  made  them  the  first  people  in  the  world.    They  extended 


PROGRESS    OF   ROMAN   CONQUEST. 


227 


their  empire  not  less  by  their  institutions  than  by  their  arms,  and 
especially  by  their  policy  of  receiving  into  their  city  the  peoples 
whom  they  had  conquered,  as  we  are  told  was  done  by  the  kings 
with  the  Latins  and  other  nations.  And  if  they  had  not  made  a 
tolerably  rapid  progress  in  the  early  period  of  their  history,  we 
may  safely  affirm  that  they  would  never  have  been  able  to  achieve 
what  they  afterwards  accomplished. 

AYe  may  further  remark,  that  Schwegler  supports  his  view  of  the 
difficulty  of  the  Latin  conquests  by  placing  them  in  a  false  light. 
They  did  not  last  only  a  few  years,  but  through  three  successive 
reigns :  nay,  we  may  say  five  successive  reigns ;  for  the  Eomans  did 
not  acquire  a  complete  ascendency  over  Latium  till  the  time  of  Tar- 
quinius  Superbus.  If  TuUus  Ilostilius  did  not  extend  his  boundaries, 
he  at  all  events  weakened  the  power  of  the  Latins  by  the  capture 
of  their  metropolis,  and  the  addition  of  its  population  to  that  of 
Eome.  The  portion  of  Latium  subdued  by  Ancus  Marcius  appears 
to  have  been  that  which  might  be  comprised  between  the  Tiber, 
the  sea,  a  line  drawn  from  the  sea  to  Alba  Longa,  and  from  Alba 
Longa  to  Eome,  or  a  space  about  twelve  or  fifteen  miles  in  extent  on 
every  side.  Yet  it  is  deemed  impossible  that  the  extent  of  country 
just  described  should  have  been  acquired  in  a  few  campaigns  ! 
While  at  the  same  time  Schwecjler  allows  that  the  towns  in  that  dis- 
trict  must  have  disappeared  at  a  very  early  period,  and  that  it  was 
good  policy  on  the  part  of  the  Eomans  to  destroy  them ;  circum- 
stances which  confirm  the  truth  of  the  traditional  history. 

To  ask  whether  the  whole  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  conquered 
district  were  transferred  to  Eome,  whether  some  of  them  may  not 
have  been  left  to  cultivate  their  lands,  is  to  press  questions  on 
those  primitive  and  scanty  annals  which  they  are  of  course  not 
competent  to  answer.  We  must  content  ourselves  with  a  general 
outline  of  the  main  facts,  and  this  there  is  nothing  to  shake.  It  is 
probable  that  the  rural  population  may  have  been  left  to  cultivate 
the  ground,  but  the  towns  people  must  have  been  carried  to  Eome ; 
or  otherwise,  their  own  cities  having  been  razed,  they  would  have 
had  no  shelter.  But  we  must  conceive  of  these  primitive  towns  as 
very  small  places, — in  fact,  little  more  than  villages,  with  perhaps 
three  or  four  thousand  inhabitants,  and  some  of  them  still  fewer. 

To  say  that  the  Aventine  was  first  assigned  to  the  p?e6s  for  a 
dwelling-place  by  the  Icilian  law  in  B.C.  456,  that  it  had  till  then 
been  common  land,  and  was  still  /or  the  most  ^mrt  covered  with 

Q  2 


228 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   HOME. 


wood,  is  a  complete  misrepresentation  of  the  account  of  Dionysius. 
From  Dionysius's  words,  "  all  of  it  was  not  at  that  time  inhabited,"  ^ 
we  may  infer  just  the  contrary — that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  it 
was  inhabited.  Tlie  remainder  of  it  was  public  land,  covered  with 
wood,  and  it  was  this  that  Icilius  proposed  to  give  to  the  plebs,  as 
well  as  some  of  the  houses  already  upon  it,  by  eviction  of  those 
who  could  not  produce  a  good  title.  And  as  this  statement  is 
unfounded,  so  also  must  be  the  inference  from  it,  that  it  was 
from  the  plebeians  being  afterwards  found  on  that  hill — that  is, 
of  course,  after  the  asserted  first  location  of  Icilius  —  that  the 
tradition  arose  of  the  Latins  having  been  planted  there  by  Ancus. 
The  Aventine  is  of  considerable  size,  according  to  Dionysius 
twelve  stadia,  or  a  mile  and  a  half,  in  circumference,  which  may  be 
about  right;  and  it  would  therefore,  with  its  adjuncts  and  valleys, 
have  accommodated  some  thousands  in  the  humble  manner  then 
customary. 

Whether  Dionysius  may  have  drawn  upon  his  imagination  for 
some  of  the  wars  of  Ancus  we  will  not  undertake  to  say.  It  is 
not  improbable  that  he  may  have  invented  some  that  are  not  men- 
tioned by  Livy,  or  taken  them  from  dubious  sources  ;  but  we  have 
already  shown  that  Ancus  must  have  had  a  war  with  Yeii. 

Schwegler  tlien  proceeds  ^  to  attack  the  tradition  which  ascribes 
the  Career  Mamertinus  to  Ancus,  as  follows  :  "  It  is  difficult  to 
say  why  the  building  of  the  career  was  ascribed  to  Ancus  Marcius  ; 
but  it  would  not  be  at  all  doubtful  if  it  could  be  shown  that 
this  state  prison  bore  the  name  of  Martins  in  antiquity.      But 
such  a  name  is  not  found  in  the  ancient  writers,  who  call  it  only 
Career,  or  from  its  lower  part  Tulliamim.     But  the  name  of  Career 
Mamertinus,  which  it  bore  in  the  Middle  Ages,  is  much  too  learned 
to  have  been  invented  in   the  time  of   the  Mirabilia,  and  must 
have  come  down  from  antiquity.     Moreover,  the  name  of  Marforio 
(Forum  Martis),  which  has  been  given  to  the  statue  of  the  river- 
god  which  stood  over  against  the  Career  Mamertinus,  points  to  an 
ancient  sanctuary  of  Mars  in  this  neighbourhood.     Hence   it  is 
possible  that  the  prison  bore  the  name  of  Mamertinus  in  antiquity; 
and  it  might  thus  be  easily  explained  how  the  foundation  of  the 
Career  Martius  was  attributed  to  Ancus  Marcius.      I^ay,  one  is 
even  tempted  to  see  in  this  traditional  connexion  of  the  Career 
with  the  name  of  Ancus    Marcius  a  proof  that  the  by-name  in 

1  8s  [K6<pos)  oux  airas  tot'  CfiK-qro. — Lib.  X.  31.  ^  Biich  xiii.  §  6. 


THE   CAROER   MAMERTINUS. 


229 


question  is  antique.  There  is  the  same  connexion  with  the 
TuUianum,  the  'lower  dungeon.'  This  dungeon,  from  an  analogous 
explanation  of  the  name,  is  commonly  attributed  to  Servius  Tullius. 
But  the  original  destination  of  the  Tullianum  was  not  for  a  prison, 
but  a  fountain-house,  and  this  is  testified  by  the  name,  since  tullius 
signifies  a  spring  ;^  Tullianum,  consequently,  the  house  of  the  spring. 
The  common  tradition,  according  to  which  Ancus  built  the  upper 
part  of  the  dungeon,  and  Servius  Tullius  the  lower,  contains  more- 
over an  actual  impossibility,  as  it  is  impossible  to  see  how  the 
Tullianum  could  have  been  built  under  the  Career  without  destroy- 
ing it  :  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  upper  room  should  have  been 
built  first,  and  then  the  lower.  Moreover,  the  whole  structure  was 
evidently  executed  at  once  from  one  plan,  and  not  at  difl'crent 
times.  Thus  it  may  be  shown  that  the  reputed  connexion  of  the 
Career  with  the  two  kings  in  question  rests  solely  on  a  false  ety- 
mology ;  but  it  certainly  belongs  to  the  regal  period.  It  is  probably 
a  work  of  Tarquin  ;  since,  as  a  fountain-house,  it  is  connected  with 
the  cloacce,  into  which  the  water  runs." 

We  may  here  admire  that  nicety  of  criticism  which  can  dis- 
tinguish whether  so  ancient  a  monument  as  the  Career  w^as  built 
in  the  reign  of  Ancus,  or,  twenty  years  later,  in  that  of  Tarquinius  ; 
though,  as  there  must  have  been  fountains  at  Rome  before  the 
Cloaca  Maxima  was  built,  we  may  be  unable  to  perceive  any 
necessary  connexion  between  that  drain  and  the  spring  in  the 
Tullianum.  Whoever  has  visited  this  place,  which  may  still  cause 
a  shudder  from  its  subterranean  gloom,  and  a  recollection  of  the 
scenes  that  have  passed  in  it,  will  see  that  it  could  never  have 
been  intended  for  anything  but  a  dungeon,  the  use  which  ancient 
authors  unanimously  ascribe  to  it.  Lying  at  the  foot  of  the 
Capitoline  Hill,  and  hollowed  out  of  the  rock,  it  was  natural  enough 
that  a  spring  of  water  should  gush  forth,  which  still  flows  to  this 
day.  From  what  it  derived  its  name,  we  will  not  attempt  to 
determme.  Kor  shall  we  follow  Schwegler  in  his  super-subtle 
speculations  about  the  name  of  JSIamertinus,'-  having  already  shown 
that  Ancus's  name  of  Marcius  is  probably  derived  from  :Marcus, 
and  not  from  Mars.      But  the  impossibihty  of  constructing  the 

1  Festus,  p.  352,  Tullios  ;  Suet.  Fragm.  de  Flum.  ap.  Fest.  (ed.  Miill.  p.  382) ; 
cf.  Pliii.  N.  H.  xvii.  26,  Tullii  Tiburtes. 

2  The  name  of  Marforio  was  probably  derived  from  the  Temple  of  Mars 

Ultor,  in  the  Forum  Augusti. 


230 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ACCESSION  OF  TARQUINIUS  PRISCUS. 


23J 


Tullianum  without  destroying  the  Career  we  must  deny,  as  it  iKS 
nothing  but  a  cellar  scooped  out  of  the  rock. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  makes  no  remarks  of  any  importance  on  the 
reign  of  Ancus  Marcius. 


SECTION  VIII. 

ACCESSION   OF   TARQUINIUS  PRISCUS. — HIS  FIRST  ACTS. 

The  sons  of  Ancus  were  nearly  grown  up  at  the  death  of 
their  father ;  wherefore  Tarquinius  pressed  on  all  the  more 
hastily  the   Comitia  for  electing  a  king.     AYlien  these  had 
been  appointed,  he  sent  the  boys  on  a  hunting-party  at  the 
time  when  they  were  to  meet.    Tarquinius  is  said  to  have  been 
the  first  who  canvassed  for  the  crown,  and  to  have  made  the 
following  speech  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  the  favour  of  the 
plebeians.     He  observed,  "  That  what  he  sought  was  no  new 
thing ;  that  he  was  not  the  first  foreigner  at  Eome  who  had 
aspired   to   the  throne — which  might   be  a  just   subject  of 
wonder  and  indignation — but  the  third;  that  King  Tatius 
had  not   only  been  a  foreigner,  but  even   an  enemy ;  that 
Numa,  though  a  stranger  to  the  city,  and  without  seeking  the 
honour,  had  been  spontaneously  elected  ;  that  with  regard  to 
himself,  he  had  migrated  to  Eome  with  his  wife  and  all  his 
fortune  as  soon  as  ever  he  had  become  his  own  master ;  that 
he  had  lived  longer  in  Eome  than  in  his  former  country, 
during  that  portion  of  his  life  in  which  men  are  capable  of 
official  duties ;  that  both  in  peace  and  war  he  had  learnt  the 
Eoman  laws  and  customs  from  no  master  whom  he  need  be 
ashamed  of,  from  King  Ancus  himself ;  that  he  had  yielded  to 
nobody  in  duty  and  attention  towards  the  king,  and  that  he 
had  vied  with  the  king  himself  in  good  offices  towards  others." 
These  were  no  false  or  idle  boasts,  and  the  Eoman  people 
by  a  great  majority  conferred  upon  him  the  crown.     But  the 
same  ambition  which  he  had  displayed  in  soliciting  it  accom- 
panied him  in  wearing  it,  and  is  a  blot  upon  his  otherwise 


well-merited  reputation.  It  was  as  much  with  a  design  to 
establish  his  own  power  as  to  improve  the  constitution  that 
he  chose  a  hundred  new  senators,  who  obtained  the  name  of 
the  ''  minor  families ; "  a  faction  he  might  rely  on,  as  they 
had  entered  the  Senate-house  through  his  favour. 

The  first  war  which  Tarquinius  waged  was  with  the  Latnis, 
in  which  he  took  by  assault  the  town  of  Appiolaj.     Here  he 
obtained  a  much  larger  booty  than  was  commensurate  with 
the  fame  of  the  expedition ;  by  the  aid  of  which  he  exhibited 
the  games  much  more  splendidly  and  expensively  than  any  of 
the  other  kings  had  done.     It  was  then  that  a  site  was  first 
marked  out  for  the  Circus,  which  is  now  caUed  the  Circus 
Maximus.     Spaces,  called  fori,  were  allotted  to  the  patricians 
and  knights,  where  every  man  might  construct  for  himself 
seats  or  scaffolding  for  viewing  the  games.    These  scaffoldings 
were  supported  on  poles  twelve  feet  high.     The  show  con- 
sisted of  horse-races  and  pugilists,  brought  for  the  most  part 
from  Etruria.      Henceforth    these    games    were    celebrated 
annually,  and  were  called  indifferently  the  Great  Games  or 
the  Eoman  Games.     Tarquin  also  allotted  spaces  round  the 
forum  to  private  individuals  for  building  on  ;  in  consequence 
of  which  shops  and  porticoes  were  erected.     He  was  also  pre- 
paring to  surround  the  city  with  a  stone  wall,  when  he  was 
interrupted  by  the  breaking  out  of  a  Sabine  war. 

Eemarks.— With  the  accession  of  Tarquin,  as  Schwegler  ob- 
serves,! a  new  epoch  begins  in  Eoman  history.  The  assertion, 
however,  of  that  writer,  that  no  interregnum  took  place  after  the 
death  of  Ancus,  is  unfounded.  It  is  true  that  neither  Livy  nor 
Cicero  expressly  mentions  an  interregnum;  on  the  other  hand, 
they  do  not  say  that  it  was  laid  aside ;  while  Dionysius,  who  is 
usually  a  favourite  author  with  Schwegler,  positively  states  that  no 
alteration  was  made,  and  that  the  Senate  appointed  Interreges  as 
usual.2  In  fact,  Tarquin,  as  yet  a  private  individual,  could  have 
had  no  power  to  make  any  change  in  the  constitution  m  this 
respect.     But  after  his  accession  he  effected  a  great  innovation,  and 

1  Buch  xiv.  §  1.  »    ,     ^  /  o 

Acts.— Lib.  iii.  46. 


8:. 


232 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


CHRONOLOGY   OF   THE   TARQUINS. 


233 


almost  swamped  the  Senate  by  the  addition  of  a  hundred  new 
members  of  a  lower  class  than  the  old  ones.  This  is  the  grand 
characteristic  of  the  Tarquinian  dynasty,  or  at  least  of  its  first  two 
kings — the  courting  of  the  popular  party.  The  first  Tarquin 
secured  his  election  by  flattering  and  soliciting  the  plebeians ;  and 
Servius  TuUius,  his  successor,  put  the  constitution  on  a  broader 
and  more  popular  basis  by  the  reforms  which  he  effected.  But  of 
this,  as  well  as  of  the  regal  constitution  in  general,  we  will  speak 
under  the  reign  of  Servius  Tullius. 

In  his  observations  on  the  history  of  Tarquinius  Priscus, 
Schwegler  remarks  :  ^  "  The  first  question  which  occurs  respecting 
the  Tarquinii,  and  on  which  the  decision  of  much  else  depends,  is 
this  :  What  is  to  be  thought  of  their  reputed  origin  from  Tarquinii, 
and  remotely  from  Corinth  1  At  the  first  glance,  this  tradition  has 
a  seductive  historical  appearance ;  not  only  because  it  is  so  de- 
cidedly connected  with  authentic  historical  events,  as  the  rise  of 
Cypselus  and  fall  of  the  Bacchiadse,  but  also  because  it  corresponds 
so  accurately  with  chronology.  Cypselus  seized  the  supreme  power 
about  the  30th  Olympiad,  B.C.  660,  and  about  forty-four  years  later, 
or  according  to  Eoman  chronology  in  B.C.  616,  the  son  of  the  exiled 
Demaratus  became  king  of  Rome.  This  chronological  agreement 
is  the  more  remarkable,  and  appears  the  more  to  vouch  for  the 
historical  value  of  the  tradition  in  question,  the  more  certain  it  is 
that  the  older  Roman  annalists  were  not,  as  Niebuhr  has  shown,^ 
in  a  condition  to  make  out  any  synchronism  between  the  Tables  of 
the  Pontiffs  and  the  history  of  Corinth.  How  little  they  were 
capable  of  making  such  a  reckoning  appears  from  the  gross  chrono- 
logical errors  committed  by  even  the  later  and  more  instructed 
historians,  such  for  instance  as  Licinius  Macer,  where  the  syn- 
chronism of  Roman  and  foreign  history  is  concerned.  Thus  the 
writer  just  mentioned  makes  Coriolanus  a  contemporary  of  the 
elder  Dionysius !  ^ 

"  Nevertheless,  the  chronological  agreement  in  question  is  but  a 
deceptive  appearance.  A  synchronism  of  the  events  of  Greek  and 
Roman  history  is,  in  the  present  case,  only  possible  when  the 
chronology  of  the  Roman  kings  is  accurately  ascertained  ;  that  is, 
that  Tarquinius  Priscus  actually  reigned  thirty-eight  years ;  Servius 
Tullius,  forty-four ;   and  Tarquinius   Superbus,  twenty-five.     Eut 


1  Buch  XV.  §  8. 


2  Rom.  Gesch.  B.  i.  S.  389. 
•^  Dionys.  vii.  1. 


J-.   -! 


if 


1 


->• 


I 


if  Tarquinius  Priscus,  as  the  old  and  genuine  tradition  uniformly 
and  consistently  relates,  was  the  father  of  the  younger  Tarquinius, 
which  last,  according  to  the  Annals,  died  a.u.c.  259,  he  could  not 
have  ascended  the  throne  in  the  year  138,  but  half  a  century  later, 
seeing  that  when  he  assumed  the  government  he  was  about  forty 
years  old.     In  short,  as  the  traditional  chronology  of  the  Roman 
kings  cannot  be  maintained,  and  is  nothing  but  invention,  so  also  the 
synchronism  of  Cypselus  with  the  father  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  falls 
to  the  ground,  and  with  it  the  main  prop  of  the  tradition  in  question. 
"The  following  consideration  also  renders  the  tradition  impro- 
bable.     The  strauQ^er  who  settles  at  Rome  is  called  Lucius  Tar- 
quinius  Priscus :  Tarquinius,  on  account  of  his  origin  from  Tarquinii  j 
Lucius,  from   Lucumo  :    Priscus,  as  distinguishing   him   from  the 
younger  Tarquin.     According  to  this,  the  whole  name  would  have 
signified  nothing  more  than  the  Lucumo  from  Tarquinii.     But  it 
cannot  be  thought  that  Tarquinius  himself  would  have  adopted 
such  a  description  as  his  proper  name,  and  borne  it  as  king.     *  The 
distinguished  man  of  Tarquinii'   is  a  mode  in  which  we  might 
speak  of  a  stranger,  but  nobody  would  name  himself  so.    Moreover, 
in  any  event  we  must  assume  that  Tarquin  had  previously  no  proper 
name,  and  was  entirely  nameless :  as  the  name  of  Lucumo,  which 
the  Roman  writers  say  he  bore  before  his  immigration,  is  no  proper 
name,  but  a  title  of  rank.     If,  however,  he  brought  a  proper  name 
with  him  to  Rome,  the  name  of  Tarquinius,  taken  from  the  place 
of  his  birth,  could  have  been  applied  to  him  only  as  a  cognomen, 
and  not  as  a  gentile  name. 

"  The  common  tradition  by  which  Tarquinius,  a  stranger  settled 
at  Rome,  became  king  by  the  free  choice  of  the  people,  and  this, 
moreover,  when  the  last  king  had  left  sons,  appears,  when  viewed 
in  connexion  with  the  uncommonly  rigid  and  exclusive  spirit  of 
the  oldest  Roman  citizens,  as  not  even  probable.  Such  an  elevation 
in  a  peaceable  and  lawful  manner  must  have  been  opposed  by  pre- 
judices and  obstacles  not  to  be  overcome  by  the  most  brilliant 
personal  qualities,  or  the  greatest  liberality  and  officiousness.  Thus 
it  appears  more  credible  on  this  ground — which,  however,  is  not 
decisive — that  the  Tarquins  were  by  birth  Roman  citizens. 

"  The  pretended  origin  of  the  Tarquins  from  Tarquinii  is  con- 
sequently nothing  more  than  an  etymological  myth,  for  which  also 
presumption  speaks.  The  Tarquins  were  a  Roman  gens,  and  the 
resemblance  of  their  name  to  that  of  Tarquinii  is  only  accidental. 


'  VJf.'- 


234 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  ROME. 


At  the  same  time,  we  do  not  mean  to  contest  tlie  tradition  respect- 
ing Demaratus,  and  his  immigration  to  Tarquinii,  nor  the  connexion 
which  it  indicates  between  that  place  and  Corinth.  This  narrative 
may  rest  on  national  Etruscan  tradition.  But  the  connecting  of 
the  Eoman  Tarquin  with  tliis  Corinthian  Demaratus  is,  according 
to  aU  presumption,  without  historical  foundation,  and  as  groundless 
as  the  connecting  of  N'uma  with  Pythagoras. 

"  With  this  vanish  also  all  those  accounts  and  traditions  which 
evidently  only  proceed  from  the  assumption  of  the  Etruscan  origin 
of  the  Tarquins  :  such  as  that  Tarquinius  Priscus  introduced  the 
insignia  of  royalty,  the  golden  bulla,  and  the  pomp  of  triumph  ; 
evidently  because  these  ornaments  and  this  pomp  passed  for  having 
been  originally  Etruscan.  That  the  wife  of  Tarquin  was  called 
Tanaquil  is  to  be  viewed  in  the  same  light.  Thana  (whence 
Tanchufil)  is  one  of  the  female  names  most  frequently  met  with  in 
Etruscan  sepulchral  inscriptions.  Tanchufil  is  also  frequently 
found ;  and  it  is  possible  that  this  name  is  merely  a  title  of  honour, 
like  donna.  According  to  another  and  evidently  older  tradition, 
the  wife  of  Tarquin,  moreover,  was  not  called  Tanaquil,  but  Gaia 
Csecilia.  Tradition  also  lends  Etruscan  names  to  the  sons  of 
Tarquin  :  they  are  called  Lucumo  (Lucius)  and  Aruns — two  names 
which  are  also  evidently  invented,  since  Aruns  (in  Etruscan,  Arnth) 
is  probably  as  little  a  real  proper  name  as  Lucumo.  Moreover,  the 
contrast  of  the  overbearing  Lucius  and  the  suffering  Aruns  is  so 
strikingly  repeated  in  the  narrative  of  Livy  about  Clusium,^  that 
we  can  hardly  doubt  there  is  some  mythico-symbolical  reason  for 
the  choice  of  these  names." 

The  accession  of  the  Tarquins  and  the  consistency  of  their 
chronology  are  no  doubt  most  important  points  in  the  early  history 
of  Eome,  and  deserve  the  most  careful  examination.  Schwegler 
has  of  course  put  everything  in  the  worst  light  for  the  credit  of  the 
history,  and  we  must  therefore  inquire  whether  he  has  always  done 
this  fairly  and  on  sufficient  grounds. 

"When  that  writer  states  that  "the  old  and  genuine  tradition 
uniformly  and  consistently  relates  that  Tarquinius  Priscus  was  the 
father  of  the  younger  Tarquinius,"  he  makes  an  assertion  for  which 
he  has  no  adequate  reason.  Eor,  first,  he  has  no  means  of  knowing 
what  the  "old  and  genuine  tradition^'  was.  The  statement  in 
question  no  doubt  comes  from  Fabius,  the  most  ancient  writer  of 

1  Lib.  V.  c.  33. 


CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  TARQUINS. 


235 


.3-'- 
^^.• 
^r-^ 

'W-. 

'"'€- 


history  ]  but  this  neither  proves  that  it  was  the  most  ancient  nor 
the  most  genuine  tradition.  He  has  still  less  grounds  for  asserting 
that  the  old  tradition  w^as  "  uniform  and  consistent ; "  on  the  con- 
trary, it  appears  from  the  liistorical  writers,  from  whom  alone  we 
can  know  anything  about  it,  that  it  was  precisely  the  reverse. 
Thus,  Livy  says,  that  it  was  very  uncertain  whether  L.  Tarquinius 
— afterwards  Tarquinius  Superbus — was  the  son  or  grandson  of 
Tarquinius  Priscus,  though  most  authors  called  him  the  son.^  It 
appears,  by  implication,  from  a  passage  in  Cicero,  that  the  same 
doubt  existed  in  his  time.  Schwegler,  indeed,  by  quoting  this 
passage  falsely,  claims  it  in  his  own  favour.  Thus,  he  AVTites  :  ^ 
*'  Tarquinius,  qui  admodum  parvos  turn  haberet  Jllios."  But  the 
real  words  are,  "  tum  haberet  liberos'^  This  makes  all  the  differ- 
ence, and  shows  that  Cicero  was  in  doubt.  Had  he  been  certain, 
he  would  either  have  used  the  word  Jilios  or  nepotes.  But  liheri 
may  mean  either  children  or  grandchildren,  and  is  indeed  used  in 
the  latter  sense  by  Cicero  himself.^  The  doubt,  therefore,  was  not 
first  raised  by  Livy  or  Dionysius,  though  the  latter  is  the  only 
author  w^ho  discusses  it  formally  and  at  length,  and  comes  to 
the  conclusion  that  Piso  Frugi,  an  old  historian,  was  right  in 
calling  the  boys  whom  Tarquinius  Priscus  left  behind  him  his 
grandsons.*  There  is,  however,  as  Dionysius  intimates,  another 
method  of  escape  from  the  difficulty ;  for  Tarquinius  Priscus  may 
have  made  the  boys  his  sons  by  adoption.  And  thus  we  see  that 
there  is  no  force  at  all  in  the  objection. 

Schwegler,  however,  repeats  it  in  the  case  of  Collatinus,  who  is 
represented  as  the  son  of  Egerius,  the  nephew  of  Tarquinius 
Priscus ;  ^  which  he  could  no  more  have  been  than  Tarquinius 
Superbus  could  have  been  his  son.  "  In  this  point,''  he  says,** 
"tradition  is  consistent  with  itself.  As  it  makes  the  sons  of 
Tarquinius  Superbus  the  grandsons  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  so  it 
makes  Lucius  Tarquinius  Collatinus,  the  contemporary  of  the  latter, 
the  grandson,  and  not  the  great-grandson,  of  Aruns,  the  elder 
brother  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  ;  though  many  historical  impossi- 
bilities arise  hence."  A  candid  critic  would  here  have  said,  not 
that  tradition  was  consistent  with   itself,  but  that  the  error  was 

1  "  Prisci  Tarquiiiii  regis  filius  iieposne  fuerit,  parum  liquet ;  plurimis  tamen 
auctoribus  filium  crediderim. " — Lib.  i.  46. 

2  Band  i.  S.  48,  Anm.  2 ;  cf.  Cic.  De  Rep.  ii.  21.  'In  Verr.  i.  15. 
4  Lib.  iv.  c.  6,  seq.                   "  Liv.  i.  57,  ^  B.  i.  S.  49. 


236 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


consistent  with  itself.      Both  mistakes  may  be  traced  to  Fabius 
Pictor,   who,  having  made  the  one,  naturally  fell  into  the  other. 
We  know  that  Fabius  wrote  in  Greek ;  he  may  not  have  been  a 
perfect  master  of   that  language,  or,  Avhat  is  more  probable,  his 
transcribers  at  Rome  may  have  corrupted  his  manuscript,  and  made 
Collatinus  vloc,  instead  of  vliovog,  of  Egerius.     But  it  must  be  con- 
fessed to  be  a  mistake,  however  it  may  have  arisen.     And  what 
does  this  prove  ?     That  the  history  was  invented  or  forged  ?     Far 
from  it ;  it  is  an  honest  blunder.     A  forger  would  have  taken  care 
that  no  such  chronological  slip  should  be  alleged  against  his  handi- 
work.    Or  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  record  1     That  there 
was  no  public  record  of  such  matters  may  be  allowed.     The  private 
history  of  Egerius  would  not  have  appeared  in  the  public  annals, 
nor  even,  perhaps,  the  genealogy  of  Tarquinius  Superbus,  though 
these  annals  would  no  doubt  have  recorded  the  deaths  of  the  kings, 
and  of  the  principal  members  of  the  royal  family.     These  annals 
could  have  recorded,  and  that  only  briefly,  the  great  public  events ; 
and  it  is  the  truth  of  such  events  alone  that  we  are  here  concerned 
to  establish. 

If  we  reduce  the  civil  chronology  of  Kome  to  astronomical  years, 
there  is  nothing  extraordinary  in  the  chronology  of  the  Tarquins. 
Tarquinius  Priscus  is  said  to  have  come  to  Rome  in  the  eighth  year 
of  Ancus,  which  would  be,  in  the  common  chronology,  632  B.C.; 
and  if  he  was  then  thirty  years  of  age,  he  would  have  been  born  in 
B.C.  662.  As  he  died  in  b.c.  578,  he  was  then  eighty-four  years 
old;  but  to  reduce  these  to  astronomical  years,  we  must  deduct 
one-sixth,  which  would  leave  him  at  seventy.  In  like  manner,  if 
his  grandson,  Tarquinius  Superbus,  was  a  boy  of  ten  at  his  death, 
he  would  have  been  forty-seven  when  he  began  to  reign  ;  an  age  at 
which  he  might  well  have  been  strong  enough  to  hurl  Servius  down 
the  steps  of  the  curia  ;  he  would  have  been  sixty-seven  at  the  time 
of  his  expulsion,  and  seventy-nine  when  he  died  at  Cumee. 

Tanaquil  might  have  been  ten  years  younger  than  her  husband, 
Tarquinius  Priscus,  and,  therefore,  twenty  when  she  came  with  him 
to  Rome,  and  sixty  at  the  time  of  his  death.  That  she  should 
have  lived  to  bury  her  son  Aruns,  in  the  fortieth  year  of  Servius 
Tullius  1  (that  is,  thirty-three  astronomical  years),  when  she  would 
have  been  ninety-three,  is  barely  possible ;  but  the  only  authority 
for  this   fact  is  Fabius  again  ;  no  other  author  appears  to  have 

^  Dionys.  iv.  30. 


■w.    **«  - 


^. 


^ 


m 


•r,. 


.«»-« 


CHRONOLOGY   OF  THE   TARQUINS. 


237 


mentioned  it,  nor  is  it  indeed  of  much  importance.  The  objections 
made  to  the  chronology  of  Brutus  we  shall  examine  when  we  come 
down  to  his  period. 

It  will  be  perceived,  however,  that  if  the  Roman  civil  years  are 
to  be  reduced  by  one-sixth,  in  order  to  bring  them  into  astronomical 
years,  then  Tarquinius  Priscus  must  have  been  the  grandson,  and 
not  the  son,  of  Demaratus.  For  the  expulsion  of  the  Bacchiadte 
from  Corinth  is  commonly  placed  in  b.c.  G55,  and,  allowing  ten 
years  for  his  wanderings  and  his  settling  at  Tarquinii,  he  might 
have  married  in  B.C.  645  ;  and  it  is  not  possible  that  Tarquin  could 
have  been  the  issue  of  this  marriage,  though  his  father  might.  It 
is  very  possible,  therefore,  that  the  old  annalists  made  a  mistake 
of  a  generation  respecting  the  father  of  Tarquin,  just  as  they  did 
respecting  his  sons. 

Schwegler's  argument  from  the  name  of  Tarquin  is  of  little  value. 
It  is  quite  evident  that  he  could  not  have  borne  the  name  of 
Lucumo  as  a  title  of  honour,  or  to  denote  that  he  was  a  "  dis- 
tinguished man,"  because  his  reason  for  leaving  Tarquinii  was  that 
he  could  obtain  no  distinction  there.  As  a  Greek  by  descent,  he 
probably  only  bore  one  name,  which  was  Latinized  by  the  Romans 
into  Lucius ;  but  it  is  very  possible  that,  after  settling  at  Rome,  he 
adopted  the  name  of  Tarquinius  from  the  place  of  his  birth.  The 
full  name  of  L.  Tarquinius  Priscus  could  not  have  been  given  to 
him  till  the  time  of  Tarquinius  Superbus  at  least.  That  there 
should  have  been  a  Roman  gejis  Tarquinia  at  Rome  before  the  time 
of  the  Tarquins,  and  that  the  resemblance  of  the  name  to  Tarquinii 
should  have  been  accidental,  are  both  highly  improbable  ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  the  Tarquins  founded  a  gejis  Tarquinia  at 
Rome  is  evident  from  the  name  of  L.  Tarquinius  CoUatinus,  the 
descendant  of  Egerius,  and  from  the  mention  of  such  a  gem  by 
Livy  and  Cicero.^ 

Tarquin,  though  a  stranger,  had  as  good  a  chance  of  the  Roman 

1  Liv.  ii.  2  ;  Cic.  Rep.  iii.  25,  31.  When  in  the  last  of  these  passages 
Cicero  says  :  "  Nostri  majores  et  Collatinum  innocentem  suspicione  cof^na- 
tionis  expulerunt,  et  reliquos  Tarquinios  offensione  nominis  ;"  if  he  meant  by 
the  "  reliqui  Tarquinii,"  persons  who  were  not  blood  relations,  as  Schwegler 
supposes  (S.  677,  Anm.  4),  then  he  must  have  meant  clients  or  liberti  of  the 
Tarquins,  who  bore  their  name.  For  that  there  was  only  one  geris  Tarquinia 
appears  from  the  preceding  passage,  "civitas,  exulem  gentem  Tarquiniorum 
esse  jussit. "  If  there  had  been  two,  Cicero  would  have  said  gentes.  Livy  also 
speaks  only  of  one. 


238 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


TANAQUIL  OR   GAIA  C/ECILIA. 


239 


crown  as  any  TJoman  ;  nay,  a  better  one,  from  his  intimacy  with 
Ancus,  the  high  position  which  he  hekl,  and  the  popularity  which 
he  had  acquired  by  his  HberaHty  and  affabihty.     The  circumstance 
that  Ancus  had  left  sons  was  no  bar  to  his  claim.     The  Koman 
crown  was  not  hereditary,  and  had  never  yet  passed  from  father  to 
son.     On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  does  not  appear  that  Schwegler 
has  any  incontrovertible  grounds  for  asserting  that  the  pretended 
origin  of  the  Tarquins  from  Tarquinii  is  nothing  more  than  an 
etymological   myth,    and  that    the   connecting   of    Tarquin   with 
Demaratus  is  as  groundless  as  the  connecting  of  ^uma  with  Pytha- 
goras.    Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  supplies  an  answer  to  this  charge  :  *'  It  is 
not,"  says  that  writer,  "  like  the  story  of  ^N'uma  and  Pythagoras,  a 
chronological  absurdity."  ^     The  remarks  which  Schwegler  makes 
concerning  the  name  of  Tanaquil  are  confirmatory  of  the  truth  of 
the  history,  since   they  show  the  name  to  have  been  Etruscan. 
When  Schwegler  says  that,  "according  to  another  and  evidently 
older   tradition,    the   wife  of  Tarquin,   moreover,   was  not  called 
Tanaquil,  but  Gaia  Caecilia,"  this  is  agrossly-uncandid  way  of  stating 
the  matter.     It  is  impossible  for  him  to  tell  whether  one  tradition 
is  older  than  another  ;  but  the  fact  is  that  in  this  case  there  were 
not  two  traditions.     Tanaquil  changed  her  name  when  she  came  to 
Rome,  just  as  her  husband  did,  and  adopted  a  Latin  one.-   Tanaquil 
and  Gaia  Ccccilia  are  one  and  the  same  person  ;  and  Schwegler  has 
not  the  shadow  of  an  authority  for  stating  in  his  note  here  that  Gaia 
Csecilia  is  origmally  entirely  different  from  Tanaquil,  and  not  con- 
sidered an  Etruscan  woman.    And  even  if  there  was  any  foundation 
for  Schwegler's  remarks  on  this  subject,  such  an  appeal  to  trifling 
circumstances  affords  no  argument  against  the  general  truth  of  the 
early  history.     Of  the  same  nature  is  the  remark  about  the  regal 
insignia,  &c. — a  mere  antiquarian  matter,  in  the  above  respect  of  no 
value.     "\Ye  need  only  add  that  there  is  no  resemblance  whatever 
between  the  story  of  Lucius  and  Aruns  Tarquinius  and  that  of 
Lucumo  and  Aruns  at  Clusium,  except  in  the  names,  which  seem 
to  have  been  common  in  Etruria ;  and,  therefore,  because  in  these 

^  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  477. 

2  "Gaia  Csecilia  appellataest,  nt  Romam  venit,  qii?e  antea  Tanaquil  vocitata 
erat,  uxor  Tarquinii  Prisci  regis  Romanorum." — Paul  Diac.  p.  95  (ed.  Miill.). 
Gaia  Coecilia.  "Tanaquil,  qu?e  eadem  Gaia  Caecilia  vocata  est." — Plin.  H.  N. 
viii.  74,  §  194.  There  is  nothing  contrary  to  this  in  the  other  passages  cited 
by  Schwegler,  S.  678,  Anm.  7  :  viz.  Festus,  p.  238,  Praedia,  and  Val.  Max. 
De  Nom. 


two  cases  Aruns  appears  to  have  been  the  injured  party,  to  draw 
thence,  without  any  other  reason,  a  general  conclusion  that  the 
names  were  mythico-symbolical,  does  not  seem  to  be  a  very  sound 
critical  method,  even  though  Buttmann  may  have  adopted  it.^ 

Schwegler  then  proceeds  (Section  9)  as  follows :  "Modern  inquirers 
also, — as  Levesque,  Miiller,  Michelet,  Arnold, — reasoning  from  the 
Etruscan  origin  of  the  Tarquins,  have  considered  the  Tarquinian 
dynasty  as  the  Tuscan  epoch  of  Rome,  and  have  referred  to  the 
Tarquins  everything  Etruscan  wliich  they  thought  they  found  in 
Eoman  customs  and  institutions.  To  this  I  cannot  accede  :  partly 
because  the  Etruscan  origin  of  the  Tarquins  is  not  true;  partly 
because  the  Etruscan  influence  on  Rome  was  not  by  far  so  great  as 
it  is  assumed  to  be ;  but  particularly  because  the  epoch  of  the 
Tarquins,  so  far  as  it  exhibits  traces  of  foreign  influence,  shows 
this  influence  to  have  been  Greek." 

"We  might  have  thought  that  the  first  of  these  reasons  would 
have  been  sufficient;  because,  if  the  Tarquins  came  not  from 
Etruria,  they  could  not  have  introduced  any  Etruscan  influence. 
On  this  point,  however,  we  differ  with  Schwegler,  though  on  the 
others  we  are  inclined  to  agree  with  him.  We  think  that  the 
Tarquins  came  from  Etruria ;  but  from  their  Greek  descent,  they 
brought  with  them  Greek  habits  rather  than  Etruscan. 

Schwegler  has  examined  this  question  in  another  part  of  his 
work,2  from  which  we  give  the  following  results.  lie  is  of  opinion 
that  the  Etruscan  settlers  at  Rome  were  not  sufficiently  numerous 
to  have  any  decided  influence  on  the  population,  which  always  re- 
mained Sabino-Latin :  and  that  this  is  shown  by  the  language, 
which  has  but  few  traces  of  Tuscan.  Further,  the  Roman  always 
regarded  the  Tuscan  as  of  a  distinct  and  foreign  race.  Even  the 
natural  boundaries  between  them  are  sharply  marked,  whilst  those 
between  the  Latins  and  the  Sabines,  or  the  Volscians,  are  imper- 
ceptible. Thus,  "  Trans  Tiberim  vendere,"  was  equivalent  to  "  to 
sell  to  foreigners : "  and  Cicero  even  calls  the  Tuscans  "  barbarians."^ 
Many  things  which  the^Romans  are  said  to  have  borrowed  from  the 
Etruscans,  were  common  to  them  with  the  Italians.  The  atrium  of 
the  Roman  house  is  said  to  be  Etruscan,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  this  was  old  Italian.'*  The  Atrium  Tuscanicum  was  only  a 
particular  species  of  atriurriy  and  the  very  term  shows  that  there 


1  Mythol.  ii.  302. 
8  Nat.  Deor.  ii.  4,  11. 


^  Buch  iv.  §  32. 

4  Abeken,  Mittel-Italien,  S.  186. 


240 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  ROME. 


ETRUSCAN  INFLUENCE  ON  ROME. 


241 


were  other  atria  which  were  not  Tuscan.  So  also  the  Roman  toga, 
and  the  Roman  doctrine  of  the  Lares,  Penates,  &c.,  are  said  by 
Miiller,  Becker,  and  others,  to  have  been  Etruscan.  But  toga  is  a 
Latin  word,  rightly  derived  by  Yarro  ^  from  tegere  ;  and  is  further 
shown  to  be  Latin  by  the  Gabine  cincture.  So,  also,  the  worship 
of  the  Lares  is  Italian  and  Sabine,  for  Tatius  consecrates  altars  to 
Larunda  and  the  Lares.  ^  In  fact,  not  a  single  Roman  worship  can 
be  shown  to  be  derived  from  Etruria ;  for  even  the  Capitoline 
Triad,  established  by  Tarquinius  Superbus,  had  its  prototype  in  the 
old  Sabine  capitol  on  the  Quirinal.'^  But  a  very  essential  and 
characteristic  feature,  that  of  the  statues  of  the  gods,  was  un- 
doubtedly introduced  in  the  time  of  the  Tarquins.  Before  the 
accession  of  the  Tarquinian  dynasty,  the  shrines  were  without 
images.^  It  cannot,  however,  be  doubted,  that  from  the  earliest 
period  the  gods  were  at  least  represented  by  symbols.  Jupiter  was 
at  first  worshipped  in  the  form  of  a  stone,  whence  the  oath  '^  Per 
Jovem  Lapidem ; "  Mars  was  represented  by  a  spear  ;  and  Vesta  by 
the  fire  which  burnt  upon  her  hearth.^  These  symbols  were  pro- 
bably adopted  rather  from  want  of  skill  to  make  a  statue,  than,  as 
Schwegler  thinks,  because  the  gods  were  not  yet  conceived  of  as 
anthropomorphous,  or  personal  beings  f  and  this  view  is  supported 
by  a  passage  in  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  quoted  by  Schwegler 
himself.''  In  fact,  Schwegler's  supposition  involves  a  contradiction 
in  terms,  for  a  symbol  refers  to  something  ;  and  if  this  was  not  a 
personal  god,  what  was  it  ?  The  same  writer  is  of  opinion  that 
image-worship  was  introduced  among  the  Romans  rather  through 
their  intercourse  with  Magna  Grsecia  than  from  Etruria;  but  he 
gives  no  reason  for  this  opinion,  and  allows  that  the  Tarquins  may 
have  employed  Tuscan  artists  and  workmen.  It  was  not,  however, 
necessary  that  the  Tarquins,  whose  ancestral  home  was  Corinth, 
1  Ling.  Lat.  v.  114.  ^  i^j^j,  §  74. 

3  "Capitolium  Vetus  quod  ibi  sacellum  Jovis,  Junonis,  Minervse,  et  id  anti- 
quius  quam  sedis  quae  in  Capitolio  facta." — Ibid.  §  158, 

4  "  Varro  dicit  antiques  Romanos  plus  annos  septem  et  septuaginta  deos  sine 
simulacro  coluisse." — St.  Aug.  Civ.  Dei.  iv.  31. 

5  Cic.  Fam.  vii.  12 ;  Polyb.  iii.  25  ;  Serv.  ^n.  viii.  641  ;  Paul.  Diac.  p.  92, 
Feretrius,  &c.  p.  115,  Lapidem;  Plut.  Camill.  20  ;  and  the  authorities  collected 
by  Ambrosch,  Studien,  i.  S.  5,  Anm.  17,  S.  6,  Anm.  26,  S.  9,  Anm.  36,  &c. 

8  B.  i.  S.  680,  Anm.  3. 

•^  Iv  'Pcofir)  TTo  Tra\ai6u  5opy  <pt](TiV  yeyovfvai  rov  "Apeoii  ro  ^6avov  Oi/dppcov  6 
o'vy'Ypa<p€vs,  ouSeTrco  rwv  T€X»'t'rc5i'  iir\  rrju  ivirpocrwiroi/  ravrrfu  KaKorexviay 
(apfir]K6Ta}V.     iireiSrj  S^  rivdriffev  rj  rex^V}  T?u^7j(rej'  ij  -rKdi^rj. — Protrept.  4,  46. 


where  art  had  already  made  considerable  progress,  should  have 
borrowed  this  custom  from  the  Greeks  of  Southern  Italy.  The 
statues  set  up  by  the  Tarquins  were  of  terra  cotta,  and  not  of 
marble,  and  in  works  of  terra  cotta  the  Corinthians  excelled.  I)ut 
no  argument,  perhaps,  can  be  drawn  from  this  circumstance  ;  for 
terra  cotta  statues  of  the  gods  are  found  at  Herculaneum  at  a  much 
later  period  :  as  for  example,  the  statues  of  ^sculapius  and  Hygieia, 
otherwise  called  Jupiter  and  Juno,  now  in  the  Neapolitan  Museum. 
But  it  is  significant  that  the  first  statue  we  hear  of  as  being  erected 
at  Rome  is  that  of  Attus  Navius,  the  augur  in  the  time  of  the  first 
Tarquin. 

The  Etruscan  influence  upon  Rome  can  be  pointed  out  with 
confidence  only  in  the  following  things.  First,  the  discipline  of 
the  Haruspices.  The  Haruspices  at  Rome  were  always  Etruscans, 
and  were  employed  on  three  occasions  :  the  inspection  of  the 
entrails  of  victims,  the  interpretation  and  expiation  of  prodigies, 
and  the  performance  of  the  rites  concerning  thunderbolts. 
Secondly,  the  doctrine  concerning  augural  temples,  in  its  ap23lica- 
tion  to  the  building  of  temples,  the  foundation  of  cities,  the 
measuring  of  land,  &c.  appears  to  have  been  of  Etruscan  origin ; 
though  this  last  indeed  may  also  have  been  old  Italian.  Thirdly, 
the  Etruscans  had  a  great  share  in  the  buildings  and  works  of  art 
of  ancient  Rome,  as  well  as  in  their  public  spectacles.^  According 
to  Yarro, 2  Tarquinius  Priscus  entrusted  the  execution  of  the  statue 
of  Jove  for  the  Capitol  to  Yolcanius,  who  was  sent  for  from  Yeii 
for  that  purpose.  Lastly,  the  insignia  of  the  Roman  magistrates, 
such  as  the  twelve  lie  tors,  the  ajyparitores,  the  toga  prceteocta,  the 
sella  curulis,  also  the  pomp  of  triumphs,  and  the  triumphal  dress, 
as  the  golden  diadem,  the  tunica  pabnataj  and  toga  ^nda,  appear  to 
have  been  borrowed  from  the  Etruscans :  ^  which  may  partly 
perhaps  be  explained  from  the  circumstance  that  the  preparation  of 
such  ornaments  was  a  main  branch  of  Etruscan  art. 

So  that,  after  all,  the  Romans  derived  not  many  things  from  the 
Etruscans,  and  fewer  still  through  the  Tarquins.  But  that  Greek 
learning  and  art  was  abundantly  introduced  among  them  by  that 

1  "Fabris  undique  ex  Etruria  accitis,"  Liv.  i.  bQ ',  "cqui  pugilesque  ex 
Etruria  acciti,"  Ibid.  35  ;  "ludiones  ex  Etruria  acciti,"  id.  vii.  2.  Cf.  Plin. 
H.  N.  XXXV.  45,  s.  157. 

2  Cited  by  Plin.  H.  N.  xxxv.  45,  s.  157. 

8  Liv.  i.  8 ;  Strabo,  v.  2,  2,  p.  220;  Dionys.  iii.  61  ;  Sil.  Ital.  viii.  iM,seqq.\ 
Macrob.  Sat.  i.  6  ;  Plin.  H.  N.  viii.  74,  s.  195,  ix.  63,  s.  136,  &c. 

R 


242 


HISTOEY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   HOME. 


INFLUENCE   OF   THE   TARQUINS. 


243 


dynasty,  is  sufficiently  attested  by  ancient  authors  ;  for  we  may 
suppose  that  whatever  portion  of  Greek  culture  Eomulus  may  have 
brought  with  him  had  now  been  pretty  nearly  obliterated  by  long 
mixture  with  the  Sabines.  Corinth,  to  which  the  Tarquins  traced 
their  origin,  was  at  that  time  one  of  the  politest  cities  in  Greece. 
Cicero  says  that  Demaratas  carefully  instructed  his  children  in 
Grecian  learning  and  art ;  that  through  their  means  an  abundant 
stream  of  it  flowed  into  Eome  ;  and  that  Tarquinius  Priscus  brought 
up  Servius  TuUius  after  the  most  exquisite  manner  of  the  Greeks.^ 
But  that  writing  was  among  the  Grecian  arts  introduced  by  the 
Tarquins,  as  Schwegler  supposes,^  is  quite  contrary  to  the  best 
testimony,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  Introduction,  and  need  not 
therefore  again  enter  into  the  subject  here.  The  Tarquins  had  no 
doubt  improved  by  their  intercourse  with  IVFagna  Gr?ecia  the  Greek 
learning  which  was  hereditary  in  their  family.  This  intercourse  is 
attested  by  the  last  Tarquin  having  taken  refuge  at  Cuma3,  as  well 
as  by  the  Sibylline  books  having  been  brought  thence  to  Eome. 
But  to  suppose,  with  Schwegler,  that  the  Eomaus  got  the  art  of 
writing  from  CumjB,  is  to  suppose  that  the  Tarquins  also  must  have 
done  so  j  which  is  highly  absurd,  since  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
letters  were  knoA\Ti  at  Corinth  when  Demaratus  was  expelled. 

The  Tarquins  especially  increased  the  pomp  of  religious  worship, 
and  made  more  magnificent  the  temples  of  the  gods.  Although 
I^uma  had  introduced  the  frequent  practice  of  religious  rites,  he 
had  rendered  them  as  simple  and  as  little  costly  as  possible,  in 
order  the  more  to  spread  them  among  the  people.  The  sacred 
utensils  were  chiefly  made  of  wood  and  earthenware,  and  to  avoid 
the  expense  of  animal  victims  he  allowed  cakes  and  fruits  to  be 
sometimes  substituted  for  them.^  We  say  ''sometimes;"  for 
Schwegler's  assertion"*  that  the  oldest  religious  worship  at  Eome, 
as  instituted  by  Numa,  admitted  only  bloodless  sacrifices,  is  evi- 
dently incorrect.  Plutarch,  the  only  direct  authority  that  he 
adduces  for  this  assertion,  does  not  bear  him  out ;  for  that  author 
only  says  that   the  greater  jmrt  of   the  sacrifices  established  by 

1  De  Rep.  ii.  19,  21.  «  g^  i  g^  530^ 

*  Hence  the  "  capedimculse  Numai." — Cic.  Nat.  Deor.  iii.  17.   "Numa  histi- 
tuit  Deos  fruge  colere  et  mola  salsa  supplicare."— Plin.  H.  NT.  xviii.  2. 

"  Aut  quia, 
Simpuvium  ridere  Nimioe,  iiigniniqiie  catinum, 
Et  Yaticano  fragiles  de  moute  patellas, 
Ausus  erat  ?" 
— Juv.  Sat.  vi.  342.     Cf.  Dionys.  ii.  23,  74.  *  S.  681. 


'c;; 


..I 


^uma  were  bloodless  ^ ;  while  Livy  describes  Kuma  as  teaching 
with  what  victims  (hostiis)  the  different  sacrifices  should  be  made.'^ 
The  Tarquins,  therefore,  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  introducers  of 
animal  sacrifices  at  Eome.  Eoman  Aveights  and  measures  on  the 
Greek  model  are  supposed  to  have  been  adopted  by  Servius 
TuUius.^  In  like  manner  we  find  Tarquinius  Superbus  sending 
magnificent  gifts  to  the  Delphic  Apollo,  in  conformity,  says  Cicero, 
with  the  institutes  of  those  from  whom  he  was  descended,^  and 
sending  his  son  to  consult  that  oracle,  also  giving  a  Greek  name, 
after  Circe,  the  daughter  of  the  Sun,  to  the  colony  which  he 
founded  on  the  coast  of  Latium.^  Schwegler  thinks  that  it  was 
also  owing  to  the  influence  of  the  Tarquins  over  Latium  that  many 
Latin  towns  may  have  begun  to  claim  a  Greek  origin,  and  especially 
to  refer  it  to  some  of  the  Homeric  heroes.  We  are  of  opinion, 
however,  that  many  of  these  towns  were  really  Greek  foundations, 
though  not,  of  course,  by  the  eponymous  heroes  whom  they  claimed. 
But  it  seems  very  probable  that  the  Eomans,  from  the  Greek 
impulse  derived  from  this  source,  may  have  now  first  begun  to 
trace  their  descent  from  ^neas,  instead  of  that  obscui'er  man  who 
landed  on  the  coast  of  Latium  only  a  generation  or  two  before  the 
foundation  of  their  city.  All  these,  however,  are  material  or 
extrinsic  things.  The  Tarquins  must  undoubtedly  have  also  given 
a  vast  impulse  to  the  moral  and  political  ideas  of  the  Eomans,  and 
liave  contributed  much  to  refine  and  polish  their  manners.  These 
things,  however,  are  not  so  easily  traced  in  those  early  times,  except 
perhaps  in  the  effect  which  they  produced  on  the  Eoman  constitu- 
tion ;  and  therefore  the  ancient  writers  are  silent  about  them.  But 
before  we  consider  the  political  reforms  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  we 
will  conclude  the  remainder  of  his  reign. 

SABINE   WARS. — BIRTH   OF   SERVIUS   TULLIUS. — MURDER   OF 

TARQUIN. 

The  attack  of  the  Sabines  was  so  sudden,  that  they  had 
already  passed  the  Anio  before  the  Eomans  could  march  to 
oppose  them.     Eome  was  in  consternation,  especially  as  the 

'  dvaifiuKTOi  riaav  al  iroWai,  5t'  dAc^tVou  koI  (Tttov^s  /cat  rtov  €VT€\€(TTdTa}v 
TT^iroi-q^ivas. — Num.  8.  ^  Lib.  i.  20. 

3  Bockh,  Metrol.  Unters,  S.  207.  ^  I>e  Rep.  ii.  24. 

5  Liv.  i.  56.  The  rock  on  which  Circeii  was  built  appears,  however,  to 
have  been  previously  the  reputed  abode  of  Ciice.  ^ 

r2 


244 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KIXGS   OF   EOME. 


TARQUIN'S   SABIXE  WAR. 


245 


result  of  tlie  first  battle,  though  a  very  bloody  one,  was 
indecisive.  But  as  the  enemy  recalled  his  troops  into  camp, 
the  Eomans  got  breathing  time  to  prepare  afresh  for  the  war. 
Tarquinius  was  of  opinion  that  his  army  was  principally 
deficient  in  cavalry,  and  therefore  he  resolved  to  add  other 
centuries  to  the  Eanmenses,  Titienses,  and  Luceres  enrolled 
by  Eomulus,  and  to  designate  them  by  his  own  name.  But 
Attus  Navius,  a  celebrated  augur  of  those  times,  proclaimed 
that  nothing  could  be  altered  or  innovated  unless  the  birds 
consented.  The  king's  anger  was  roused  thereat,  and,  by 
w^ay  of  bantering  the  art  of  augury,  he  is  reported  to  have 
said  :  "  Come,  prophet,  augur  whether  what  I  am  now  think- 
ing can  be  done."  Then  Attus,  having  tried  the  matter  by 
augury,  assured  him  that  it  could.  "I  was  considering," 
replied  Tarquin,  "  whether  you  could  cut  this  whetsone  with 
a  razor.  Take  them,  and  do  what  your  birds  portend  you 
can."  Then  Attus,  without  hesitating  a  moment,  is  said  to 
have  cut  the  whetstone.  A  statue  of  Attus,  having  the  head 
veiled,  long  stood  in  the  Comitium,  on  the  stei:)s  to  the  left  of 
the  Curia,  the  scene  of  the  occurrence ;  the  whetstone  is  also 
said  to  have  been  deposited  in  the  same  place,  to  serve  as  a 
monument  of  the  miracle  to  posterity.  All  that  is  certain 
about  the  story  is,  that  from  this  time  auguries,  and  the 
College  of  Augurs,  grew  into  such  repute  that  nothing  hence- 
forwa.rd  was  done,  either  at  home  or  abroad,  without  takino- 
the  auspices ;  so  that  assemblies  of  the  people,  armies  that 
had  been  enrolled,  in  short,  all  the  most  important  affairs  of 
State,  were  dissolved  and  suspended  if  the  augural  omens  were 
adverse.  Tarquinius,  therefore,  made  no  change  in  the  cen- 
turies of  the  knights ;  but  he  doubled  their  number,  so  that 
there  should  be  eighteen  hundred  knights  in  the  three  cen- 
turies. These  bore  the  same  names  as  the  former  ones,  only 
they  were  called  the  later,  or  second  knights ;  which  being 
doubled  are  now  called  six  centuries. 

Tarquin,  having  thus  increased  this  part  of  his  forces,  again 
took  the  field  against  the  Sabines.  But  he  was  not  satisfied 
with  having  only  increased  his  strength ;  he  also  resorted  to 
stratagem.     He  directed  a  vast  quantity  of  wood  that  was 


lying  on  the  banks  of  the  Anio  to  be  set  on  fire  and  to  be 
thrown  into  the  river.  The  wind  helped  to  ignite  it,  and  a 
great  part  of  it  was  in  boats,  which,  driving  against  the  piles 
of  the  bridge,  set  it  on  fire.  The  sight  of  the  burning  bridge 
during  the  battle  struck  the  Sabines  with  terror,  and  not  only 
this,  but  also  hindered  their  flight,  so  that  many  of  them  were 
drowned  in  the  river.  Their  arms  were  carried  down  the 
stream  into  the  Tiber,  and  so  to  Eome,  where  they  were 
recognised,  and  thus  proclaimed  the  victory  before  the  news 
coidd  be  brought.  The  chief  glory  of  the  day  belonged  to 
the  knights.  These  had  been  stationed  on  each  wing;  the 
Sabines  had  broken  the  main  body  of  the  Eoman  foot  and 
were  in  hot  pursuit,  when  the  cavalry,  charging  from  each 
side,  not  only  arrested  the  Sabines,  but  compelled  them  in 
turn  to  fly.  They  made  for  the  mountains  in  complete  rout, 
but  only  a  few  succeeded  in  gaining  them ;  the  greater  part, 
as  we  have  said,  were  driven  by  the  cavalry  into  the  river. 
Tarquinius  determined  to  pursue  the  Sabines.  He  therefore 
sent  the  prisoners  and  the  booty  to  Eome.  The  spoils  of  the 
enemy  he  had  devoted  to  Vulcan  ;  and  having  collected  them 
into  a  great  heap,  and  set  it  on  fire,  he  proceeded  with  his 
army  into  the  Sabine  territory.  Here  he  was  again  met  by 
the  Sabines,  who  had  rallied  their  forces  as  well  as  they  could, 
but  without  much  hope  of  making  a  successful  stand.  The 
result  was  another  defeat,  which  reduced  them  almost  to  the 
brink  of  destruction  ;  so  they  sent  to  beg  a  peace. 

As  the  price  of  this  they  were  obliged  to  cede  CoUatia  and 
its  territory ;  Egerius,  son  of  the  king's  brother,  was  left  there 
with  a  garrison.  The  Collatines  surrendered  according  to  the 
following  form,  which  became  the  established  one.  The  king 
inquired  of  the  envoys  from  Collatia  :  "  Are  you  the  ambas- 
sadors and  orators  sent  by  the  Collatine  people  to  surrender 
yourselves  and  them?"  "We  are."  ''Are  the  Collatine 
people  their  own  masters  ? "  "  They  are."-  "  Do  you  sur- 
render yourselves  and  the  Collatine  people,  their  city,  lands, 
waters,  boundaries,  temples,  utensils,  and  all  their  property, 
religious  and  secular,  to  me  and  to  the  Eoman  people?" 
"  We  do."     "  And  I  receive  the  surrender." 


4-t±i 


246 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ADOPTION   OF   SERVIUS   TULLIUS. 


247 


Having  thus  terminated  the  Sabine  War,  Tarquinius  returned 
in  triumph  to  Eome.  He  then  made  war  upon  the  Prisci 
Latini,  and  subdued  tlie  whole  Latin  nation  by  attacking 
every  city  separately,  and  without  once  fighting  a  regular 
pitched  battle.  The  cities  thus  reduced,  or  recovered  from 
the  Prisci  Latini,  were  Corniculum,  Old  Ficulea,  Cameria, 
Crustumerium,  Ameriola,  JVIedullia,  Momentum.  A  peace  was 
then  granted  to  the  Latins. 

Tarquin  now  applied  himself  to  the  works  of  peace  with 
even  greater  ardour  than  he  had  conducted  those  vast  wars, 
and  thus  kept  the  people  in  constant  employment.  He 
resumed  the  preparations  for  building  a  stone  wall  around 
the  city,  which  had  been  interrupted.  He  drained  the  lower 
parts  of  the  city  about  the  Forum  and  other  valleys  between 
the  hills  ;  drawing  off  the  water  by  means  of  drains  running 
with  a  slope  into  the  Tiber.  He  began  also  to  lay  on  the 
Capitol  the  foundations  of  a  Temple  of  Jupiter,  which  he  had 
vowed  in  the  Sabine  War ;  already  anticipating  with  pro- 
phetic mind  the  future  greatness  of  the  spot. 

While  he  was  thus  employed  a  prodigy  happened  in  the 
palace,  which  turned  out  no  less  wonderful  in  the  event.  It 
is  related  that  the  head  of  a  boy  named  Servius  TuUius 
seemed  on  fire  while  he  slept,  and  that  the  prodigy  was 
witnessed  by  many  persons.  The  clamour  they  made  at  the 
sight  of  such  a  spectacle  attracted  the  attention  of  the  king. 
Meanwhile  one  of  the  servants  had  run  for  water  to  extin- 
guish the  fire,  but  was  prevented  by  the  queen.  She  bade 
them  be  still,  and  not  to  touch  the  boy  till  he  should  awake 
of  his  own  accord ;  and  when  he  did  so,  the  flame  imme- 
diately departed.  Then  Tanaquil  took  her  husband  aside, 
and  thus  addressed  him :  "  Do  you  see  this  boy  whom  we  are 
brmging  up  in  so  humble  a  manner?  Know  that  he  will 
hereafter  be  a  light  in  our  dubious  fortunes,  and  the  safeguard 
of  our  afflicted  house.  Let  us,  therefore,  educate  him  with 
every  care  and  indulgence,  as  he  will  cause  us  much  honour 
both  publicly  and  privately." 

From  this  time  the  boy  was  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  child, 
and  was  instructed  in  all  those  accomplishments  which  befit 


f 


'^. 


K\- 


•la..-  i 


V- 

»v'. 
lie 
**" 

-Si- 


so  high  a  fortune.  The  interposition  of  the  gods  was  mani- 
fest throughout.  The  youth  turned  out  of  a  temper  truly 
royal ;  insomuch  that  when  Tarquin  was  looking  about  for  a 
husband  for  his  daughter,  there  was  no  youth  at  Eome  that 
could  in  any  way  be  compared  to  him ;  so  the  royal  maiden 
was  betrothed  to  him.  A  mark  of  so  much  honour,  from 
whatever  cause  bestowed,  forbids  the  thought  that  he  was  the 
son  of  a  slave,  and  when  young  a  slave  himself.  I  am  rather 
of  the  opinion  of  those  who  think  that  the  father  of  Servius 
Tullius  was  the  chief  man  in  Corniculum ;  that  he  was  killed 
when  the  town  was  taken,  leaving  his  wife  pregnant ;  who  was 
recognised  among  the  other  captive  women,  and  rescued  from 
slavery  by  the  Roman  queen  on  account  of  her  rank.  She 
was  brought  to  bed  at  Eome,  in  the  palace  of  Tarquin ;  hence 
a  great  friendship  sprung  up  between  the  women,  and  the  boy, 
having  been  brought  up  in  the  palace  from  his  infancy,  was 
loved  and  honoured.  It  was,  probably,  the  fate  of  Ins  mother, 
who,  on  the  capture  of  her  native  city,  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  enemy,  that  occasioned  the  belief  of  his  being  the  son  of 

a  slave. 

In  about  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tarquin, 
Servius  Tullius  was  held  in  the  highest  esteem,  not  only  by 
the  king,  but  also  by  the  patricians  and  plebs.  The  two  sons 
of  Ancus  ]Marcius  had  long  been  indignant  that  they  should 
have  been  kept  out  of  the  crown  worn  by  their  father,  through 
the  fraud  of  their  guardian,  and  that  a  foreigner,  not  even  of 
Italian,  much  less  Eoman,  race  should  reign  at  Eome.  But 
their  anger  Vv^as  wonderfully  increased  when  they  saw  that 
they  had  not  a  chance  of  the  crown,  even  on  the  death  of 
Tarquin ;  that  it  would  be  dragged  through  the  mud,  and  that 
about  a  century  after  Eomulus,  the  son  of  a  god,  and  himself 
a  god,  the  sceptre  which  he  had  held  while  he  was  on  earth 
would  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  slave.  They  held  that  it  would 
be  disgraceful  to  the  whole  Eoman  nation,  and  particularly  so 
to  their  house,  if,  while  the  race  of  Ancus  was  still  in  exist- 
ence, the  Eoman  kingdom  should  be  thrown  open,  not  only 
to  foreigners,  but  slaves.  Such  a  contumely  they  resolved  to 
avert  by  violence.     But  the  injury  which  they  had  received 


248 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


ACCESSION   OF   SERVIUS  TULLIUS. 


249 


at  the  hands  of  Tarquin  stimuhited  them  rather  against  him 
than  Servius.  It  also  occmTed  to  them  that,  if  the  kino- 
should  be  left  alive,  he  woidd  avenge  the  murder  more  severely 
than  a  private  person ;  also  that,  if  Servius  were  slain,  Tar- 
quin would  make  any  other  son-in-law  whom  he  might  choose 
heir  to  the  crown.  For  these  reasons  a  conspiracy  was  formed 
against  the  king  himself.  Two  of  the  most  ferocious  shep- 
herds were  selected  to  perpetrate  the  deed.  Armed  with  the 
rustic  weapons  of  that  class,  they  feigned  a  quarrel  in  the 
very  vestibule  of  the  palace,  and  by  the  loudness  of  their 
strife  attracted  the  attention  of  all  the  royal  attendants. 
Then  both  began  to  appeal  to  the  king,  and  the  noise  having 
penetrated  into  the  interior  of  the  palace,  they  were  called 
into  his  presence.  Here  both  began  to  vociferate  together,  as 
if  trying  which  could  make  the  most  noise  ;  till  being  stopped 
by  a  lictor,  and  told  to  speak  in  turn,  they  at  last  desisted ; 
and  one  of  them  began  to  narrate  the  cause  of  quarrel. 
While  the  king's  attention  was  thus  absorbed,  the  other  man 
struck  at  his  head  with  a  hatchet,  and,  leaving  the  weapon  in 
the  wound,  both  rushed  forth  from  the  palace. 

The  bystanders  supported  the  dying  king  in  their  arms,  while 
the  lictors  pursued  and  apprehended  the  fugitives.  A  noisy 
crowd  soon  gathered  round,  wondering  what  was  the  matter. 
Amidst  the  tumult,  Tanaquil  orders  the  palace  to  be  cleared, 
and  the  gates  to  be  shut.  Tlien  she  busily  prepares  some 
medicaments,  as  if  there  were  still  hope,  and  at  the  same  time 
contrives  some  means  of  safety  if  that  hope  should  fail.  She 
hastily  summons  Servius,  shows  him  her  husband  on  the 
pomt  of  dissolution,  and,  seizing  his  right  hand,  beseeches 
him  not  to  let  the  death  of  his  father-in-law  pass  unpunished, 
nor  suffer  his  mother-in-law  to  be  the  prey  and  sport  of 
enemies.  ''  Servius,"  she  exclaimed,  "  the  kingdom  is  yours, 
if  you  are  a  man;  not  theirs  who,  by  hired  assassins,  have 
perpetrated  this  horrible  deed.  Bestir  yourself,  follow  the 
gods  who  lead  you,  and  who  formerly  portended  your  fortunes, 
by  the  divine  fire  that  played  around  your  head.  Let  that 
celestial  flame  arouse  you :  up  and  be  doing.  Have  not  we 
also  reigned,  though  foreigners  ?     Consider  who  you  are,  not 


V. - 

"■■A  9 

'f:  '' 


l\ 


,•1 


how  you  were  born.     And  if  you  are  at  a  loss  to  act  on  so 
sudden  an  emergency,  then  follow  my  counsels." 

The  clamour  and  stir  of  the  crowd  had  now  become  in- 
supportable; so  Tanaquil,  addressing  the  people  from  a 
window  in  the  upper  part  of  the  house,  which  looked  to- 
wards the  Nova  Via — for  Tarquin  dwelt  near  the  Temple  of 
Jupiter  Stator — spoke  as  follows  : — "  Be  of  good  cheer,"  she 
said  ;  "  the  king  was  stunned  by  the  suddenness  of  the  blow  ; 
the  weapon  has  not  penetrated  deep ;  he  is  already  re- 
covering his  senses.  The  blood  has  been  wiped  away,  and  the 
wound  inspected;  the  symptoms  are  good;  and  I  trust 
you  will  soon  see  the  king  again.  In  the  mean  time  he  com- 
mands the  people  to  obey  Servius  Tullius.  He  will  administer 
justice,  and  discharge  the  other  functions  of  the  king." 

Hereupon  Servius  comes  forth  in  a  robe  of  state,  accom- 
panied by  lictors ;  and  taking  his  seat  on  the  throne,  decides 
some  causes,  and  pretends  that  he  will  consult  the  king  about 
others.  In  this  manner,  the  death  of  Tarquin  being  kept 
concealed  during  several  days  after  he  had  expired,  Servius 
confirmed  his  own  power  under  the  appearance  of  discharging 
the  duties  of  the  king.  At  length  tlie  death  of  Tarquin  is 
announced,  amidst  great  lamentation  in  the  palace,  and 
Servius,  supported  by  a  powerful  guard,  ascends  the  throne 
with  the  goodwill  of  the  patricians,  but  without  being  nomi- 
nated by  the  people.  The  sons  of  Ancus,  after  the  appre- 
hension of  their  hirelings,  hearing  that  the  king  was  alive, 
and  that  the  power  of  Servius  was  so  strong,  fled  to  Suessa 
Pometia. 

Remarks. — Schwegler,  after  having  pointed  out  that  the  in- 
stitutions of  Tarquinius  Prisons  were  not  borrowed  from  Etruria, 
but  rather  manifest  a  Grecian  influence,  comes  to  the  singular 
conclusion,  after  Niebuhr,  that  Tarquin  was  a  Latin. ^  Niebuhr's 
principal  reasons  for  this  opinion  seem  to  be  that  Priscus,  the  name 
borne  by  the  elder  Tarquin,  is  evidently  a  national  name ;  that 
therefore  the  name  Tarquinius  Priscus  would  mean  Tarquin  the 
Priscan  (Latin) ;  and  that,  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings  from 

1  Schwegler,  Buch  xv.  §  10 ;  cf.  Niebuhr,  Rom.  Gesch.  B.  i.  393. 


■JCi 


250 


HISTOEY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  EOMF. 


REFORMS   OF   TARQUINIUS    TRISCUS. 


251 


Eome,  we  find  some  Tarquinii  settled  at  Laurent uri/  just  as 
Collatinus  settled  at  Lavinium ;  which  they  would  not  have  done 
had  Tarquinii  been  their  home.  But  the  opinion  that  Prisms  was  a 
national  name  is,  we  believe,  now  universally  exploded,^  and  to  call 
Tarquinii  the  home  of  the  Tarquins,  when  the  whole  family  had 
quitted  it  in  disgust  a  century  before,  seems  a  very  singular  idea. 
We  say  the  whole  family ;  for  Tarquinius  Priscus  had  evidently 
brought  away  with  him  his  brother's  widow  and  her  child,  or 
Ecferius  could  not  have  been  in  his  service.  Under  these  circum- 
stances,  Tarquinii,  we  might  imagine,  would  have  been  the  last 
place  they  would  have  thought  of  returning  to. 

Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  remark  that  tradition  ascribes  to 
Tarquinius  Priscus  three  innovations  in  the  existing  constitution  : 
the  doubling  of  the  three  ancient  stem-tribes,  or,  as  he  calls  them, 
patricians ;  the  doubling  of  the  centuries  of  knights  ;  and  the 
addition  of  a  hundred  new  senators. 

"  Concerning  the  motives  for  these  reforms,"  he  observes,  "we  may 
conjecture  as  follows.  Through  the  subjugation  of  the  adjoining 
Latin  district,  the  Eoman  state  had  obtained  so  great  an  increase  of 
population  that  the  former  constitution  was  no  longer  suitable  to 
the  present  state  of  things.  Together  with  the  original  citizens, 
who,  divided  into  three  tribes  and  thirty  curiae,  were  in  the  ex- 
clusive possession  of  all  political  and  religious  rights,  there  now 
existed  a  far  more  numerous  plebs,  but  unorganized,  undistributed, 
and  without  any  privileges.  Under  these  circumstances  it  became 
a  political  necessity  organically  to  incorporate  this  plebs  in  the 
state  j  to  give  it  a  recognised  position  and  function  in  political  life  ; 
and  in  some  degree  to  reconcile  the  dangerous  inequality  between 
the  old  and  the  new  citizens.  Another  motive  was  that  the  kings, 
who  had  in  the  plebs  a  natural  ally  against  that  aristocracy  of  race 
which  cramped  the  kingly  power,  could  not  but  be  disposed  to  elevate 
it  and  to  endow  it  with  political  rights.  Tarquin  comprehended 
this  state  of  things,  and  the  necessity  for  a  new  organization  of  the 
citizens.     We  do  not,  indeed,  accurately  know  the  nature  of  the 

^  Dionys.  v.  54. 

2  It  is  rejected  by  Schwegler,  who  observes  in  a  note,—"  Priscus  means  an- 
dent,  previous^  in  opposition  to  modern  (cf.  Prisci  Latini).  Tarquinius  Priscus, 
therefore  does  not  mean  'Tarquin  the  elder,'  but  'Tarquin  the  old,  or 
ancient, '  He  is  priscus  so  far  as  he  represents  a  more  ancient  order  of  things, 
a  diflerent  phase  of  Tarquinian  rule,  from  '  Tarquinius  the  despot.'  " 


1  *e 


Svi 


^.^■' 


reform  which  he  contemplated ;  though  it  certainly  concerned  not 
only,  as   Livy   represents,    the    institution   of    new   centuries   of 
knights,  but  also,  as  we  see  from  other  historians,  the  creation  of 
new  tribes  :  were  it  that  Tarquin  contemplated  constituting  out  of 
the  plebs  a  corresponding  number  of  new  tribes,  and  placing  them 
by  the  side  of  the  existing  three  stem-tribes  of  Kamnes,  Titles, 
and  Luceres,  or  a  completely  altered  organization  of    the  whole 
population.     But  the  plan  failed  through  the  opposition  of  the 
old  citizens.     Attus  Navius  objected  that  the  existing  number  of 
three  tribes,  firmly  established  by  a  previous  taking  of  the  auspices, 
rested  on  divine  sanction,  and  could  not  therefore  be  altered  at 
human  pleasure  :  that  is,  the  old  citizens  carried  their  opinion,  that 
an  innovation  like  that  contemplated  by  Tarquin   would  be   an 
upsetting  of   the  whole  subsisting  order  of   things,   and  of   the 
religious  foundations  of  the  state.     And  such  it  actually  was.     The 
old  citizens  were  at  the  same  time  a  sort  of  political  clergy.     The 
auspices  rested  with  them,  and  consequently  the  exclusive  con- 
secration and  right  of  mediation  between  the  gods  and  the  state, 
and  of  filling  all  spiritual  and  temporal  offices.     This  consecration, 
resting  on  hereditary  capability  to  receive  it,  could  be  transmitted 
only  by  birth,  and  not  by  an  act  of  the  human  will ;  a  transmission 
of  it  to  those  not  qualified  was  a  violation  of  the  divine  law.     In 
short,  all  the  objections  which  were  afterwards  raised  from  the 
religious  point  of   view   against  the    admission    of   the   ^^/e^s   to 
coimubium,  to  the  curule  offices,  and  to  the  priesthood,  would  have 
been  then  pressed  much  more  strongly  and  emphatically.     In  this 
view  it  is  quite  characteristic  that,  according  to  the  old  tradition, 
the  gods  themselves  intervened  to  protect  the  threatened  religion, 
and  to  accredit  the  divine  right  of  the  old  citizens  by  a  miracle. 
Tarquin  did  not  feel  himself  strong  enough  to  break  through  the 
opposition  offered ;  and  was  compelled  to  content  himself,  instead 
of  creating  new  tribes,  with  increasing  the  three  existing  ones,  by 
receiving  into  them  the  leading  plebeian  families.     To  each  of  the 
three  ancient  tribes  he  added  a  second  division  equally  strong, 
through   which   the  number  of  the  patrician  races  was    doubled, 
while  nominally  the  old  number  of  three  tribes  remained.     These 
three  new  halves  of  tribes  were  called  semndi  Kamnes,  Titles,  and 
Luceres,  and  the  former  tribes  primi  Titles,  Eamnes,  and  Luceres. 
Through  this  innovation  the  old  citizens  lost  at  all  events  the 
former  exclusiveness  of  their  political  position ;  but,  in  principle 


252 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


DOUBLING    OF   THE   KNIGHTS. 


253 


at  least,  the  existing  priesthood  was  not  overthrown,  in  so  far — 
as  there  is  cause  to  suppose — the  younger  tribes  did  not  obtain 
full  possession  of  the  jus  sacrorum ;  and  thus  the  creation  of  these 
younger  half  tribes  bore  predominantly  a  political  character.  The 
newly  created  patrician  races  also  stood  politically  below  the 
others :  they  were  called  the  smaller  races  (patres  minorum  gentium) 
by  way  of  distinction  from  the  old  races,  which  from  this  time 
were  called  patres  majorum  gentium :  a  distinguishing  name  from 
which  we  must  also  conclude  a  difference  of  rights.  For  the  rest, 
much  remains  dark  in  this  Tarquinian  reform.  We  do  not  learn ^ 
how  the  existing  distribution  into  Curige  was  brought  into  accord- 
ance with  the  doubling  of  the  stem-tribes,  nor  what  measures 
Tarquin  adopted  with  regard  to  the  remainder  of  the  plehs ,  or 
whether  he  permitted  it  to  continue  an  unorganized  mass  ;  which, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  military  service  and  organization  of  the 
army,  is  scarcely  credible. 

"  The  doubling  of  the  centuries  of  knights  undertaken  by  Tar- 
quin— or,  at  all  events,  ascribed  to  him — is  immediately  connected 
with  the  doubling  of  the  stem-tribes.  Tarquin  proceeded  in  the 
same  manner  in  both  cases ;  he  added  to  each  of  the  existing  cen- 
turies, as  recorded  to  have  been  instituted  by  Eomulus,  a  second 
division  of  the  same  strength,  so  that  the  whole  number  of  the 
centuries  remained  nominally  the  same.  The  knights  newly  added 
were  distinguished  from  those  of  the  three  ancient  centuries  by 
calling  them  piosteriores^  or  secundi.  Thus  the  division  into  py^imi 
and  secundi  equites  Eamnenses,  Titienses,  and  Lucerenses  entirely 
corresponds  with  the  division  of  the  tribes  into  primi  and  secundi 
Ramnes,  Titles,  and  Luceres.  Both  institutions  evidently  had  an 
original  connexion,  and  the  new  citizens  received  into  the  three 
stem-tribes  would  have  had  to  furnish  the  secundas  equitum  partes.^* 

Schwegler  then  goes  on  to  the  difficult  question  of  the  number  of 
the  knights,  which  we  have  touched  upon  in  another  place,  and 
which  will,  perhaps,  never  be  satisfactorily  settled.  Eespecting  the 
doubling  of  the  Senate,  he  says  :  "  From  the  doubling  of  the  Patres, 
or  the  creation  of  the  minor  races,  must  be  distinguished,  as  we 
have  already  remarked,  a  third  measure  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  the 
naming  of  a  hundred  new  senators,  which  is  ascribed  to  him.  Tar- 
quin thus  brought  up  the  Senate,  which  till  then  had  contained  only 

^  It  would  indeed  have  been  singular  if  we  did.     These  difficulties  would 
have  suggested  to  a  sensible  critic  the  error  of  the  view  he  was  taking. 


^>>  ■ 


■  % 


m' 


Urf  ' 

*■■•:• 


two  hundred  members,  a  hundred  from  the  tribe  of  the  Ramnes,  a 
hundred  from  that  of  the  Titles,  to  the  subsequent  normal  number 
of  three  hundred.     If  we  inquire  for  the  motives  and  original  con- 
nexion of  these  measures,  the  historians  leave  us  without  any  ex- 
planation,  since  we  must  decidedly  reject  their  erroneous   opinion 
that  the  election  of  these  hundred  senators  and  the  creation  of 
the  minor  races  were  one  and  the  same  act.     Nevertheless,  there 
might  have  been  an  original  connexion  between  the  two  measures ; 
as,  for  instance,  that  Tarquinius  may  have  given  the  newly-created 
races  a  hundred  seats  in  the  Senate ;  while  the  old  races,  the  pn^imi 
Ramnes,  Titles,  and  Luceres  held  two  hundred  of  them.     But  this 
assumption  is  contradicted  by  the  circumstance  that  the  previously 
existing  two  hundred  senators,  if  ive  are  to  believe  the  historiaiis, 
represented  only  the  Ramnes  and  Titles,  and  not  the  Luceres ;  and 
thus,  if  the  hundred  new  senators  were  taken  from  the  minor  races, 
the  secundi  Luceres  would  now  have  been  represented,  while  the 
primi  Luceres  were  still  without  that  right.     This  is  not  probable, 
and  hence  it  appears  more  credible,  if  we  accept  the  accounts  of  the 
historians  respecting  the  successive  augmentations  of  the  Senate, 
that  the  hundred  new  senators  added  by  Tarquin  belonged  to  the 
Luceres,  who  thus,  through  this  king,  first  attained  complete  political 
equality  with  the  other  two  races.     It  is  true  that  by  this  assumption 
we  fall  into  other  difficulties ;  since  if  the  three  hundred  senators 
of  the  Tarquinian  time  were  a  representation  of  the  three  ancient 
tribes,  then — since  the  number  of  three  hundred  appears  to  have 
been  the  standing  one,  which  was  never  exceeded — there  remains  no 
place  in  the  Senate  for  the  minor  races ;  although,  as  the  nature  of 
their  relations  compels  us  to  assume,  and  as  appears  from  a  distinct 
account  of  Cicero's  (De  Rep.  ii.  20),  these  races  were  represented  in 
it,  and  that  thus  their  senators  were  included  in  that  number.     No 
completely  satisfactory  method  presents  itself  of  reconciling  this 
contradiction.     We  might  assume,  with  Niebuhr,  that,  at  the  time 
of  the  Tarquinian  reform,  the  original  nimiber  of  the  races  had  been 
long  incomplete,  and  that  the  old  citizens  of  the  three-stem  tribes 
could  no  longer  supply,  as  formerly,  three  hundred,  but  only  two 
hundred   senators ;    to  w-hich   number  Tarquinius  Priscus   added 
another  hundred  from  the  minor  races.     But  even  by  this  hypo- 
thesis there  still  remain  gaps  in  the  tradition ;  namely,  in  so  far  as 
tradition  is  wholly  silent  about  the  summoning  of  the  Luceres  to 
the  Senate.     Hence,  therefore,  it  must  be  questioned  in  general 


w    >  t  ' 


254 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


whether  the  accounts  of  the  ancients  respecting  the  successive 
increase  of  the  Senate,  and  the  representation  of  the  first  two  races 
by  a  hundred  members  each,  are  to  be  regarded  as  genuine  and 
credible  tradition. 

*'  To  Tarquinius  Priscus  is  also  ascribed  another  regulation  closely 
connected  Avith  the  representation  of  the  stem-races  :  he  is  said  to 
have  raised  the  number  of  the  Vestals  from  four  to  six.  This  was 
evidently  done  with  the  object  of  placing  the  third  race  on  an 
equality  with  the  other  two  with  relation  to  the  priesthood  of  the 
Vestal  virgins,  since  the  previous  number  of  four  Vestals  repre- 
sented only  the  first  two  races.  If  we  connect  this  increase  of  the 
Vestals  from  four  to  six  with  the  analogous  increase  of  the  members 
of  the  Senate  from  two  hundred  to  three  hundred,  the  conjecture 
that  the  last  measure  related  to  the  tribe  of  the  Luceres  gains  in 
probability,  and  that,  consequently,  the  third  tribe  first  obtained  its 
full  political  rights  through  the  elder  Tarquinius,  who  perhaps 
belonged  to  it. 

'*  For  the  rest,  if  Tarquin  really  belonged,  as  there  is  some  ap- 
pearance, to  the  tribe  of  the  Luceres,  his  elevation  to  the  throne 
was  an  innovation ;  for  the  kings  before  him  alternate  only  betAveen 
Eamnes  and  Titles.  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  innovation  was 
carried  out  by  force.  Tradition  has  preserved  a  trace  of  this,  since 
Tarquinius  Priscus  is  the  first  of  the  Eoman  kings  who  ascends  the 
throne  without  a  previous  interregnum,  and  without  being  created 
by  an  Interrex,  and  consequently  in  an  illegitimate  manner." 

On  this  we  will  remark  that  the  notion  of  Tarquin's  wishing  to 
double  the  three  tribes  is  only  a  Teutonic  one,  not  to  be  found  in 
any  of  the  ancient  writers,  though  built  upon  a  misconstruction  of 
some  passages  in  them.  Probability  is  entirely  against  it ;  for,  first, 
Tarquin  must  have  been  an  exceedingly  bad  political  doctor  to 
apply  to  a  disease  a  remedy  which  could  only  have  aggravated  it. 
The  disorder  under  which  Rome  laboured  was,  we  are  told,  that  it 
had  a  superabundance  of  patricians  in  proportion  to  the  plebs;  and, 
to  cure  this  state  of  things,  Tarquin  creates  as  msmy  patricians 
again  !  still  leaving  an  immense  plebeian  mass  unenfranchised,  as  is 
evident  from  the  necessity  of  the  subsequent  reform  effected  by 
Servius  Tullius.  We  do  not,  indeed,  believe,  with  the  German 
school,  that  Tarquin  could  have  converted  plebeians  into  patricians 
merely  by  distributing  them  among  the  Curiae,  because  we  hold 
that  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Curice  were  plebeian ;  but 


Hv. 


St.Jf- 


DOUBLING   OF  THE  TRIBES. 


255 


[ 


f* 


s 

: 

1- 


this  point  we  have  examined  in  another  place,  and,  as  the  Germans 
believe  the  reverse,  the  absurdity  of  their  view  remains. 

Secondly,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  incredible  that,  if  Tarquin 
had  really  contemplated  so  important  a  measure  as  a  doubling  of 
the  ancient  populus,  it  should  have  been  passed  over  in  complete 
silence  by  Livy,  Cicero,  and  even  Dionysius,  although  they  dis- 
tinctly mention  the  increase  made  by  Tarquin  in  the  Senate  and  in 
the  equestrian  order.     Passages,  indeed,  of  the  last  two  of  these 
authors,  as  well  as  of  other  writers,  have  been  adduced  in  proof  of 
the  hypothesis  in  question,  wliich  we  will  now  proceed  to  examine. 
And  first  we  will  take  the  authorities  adduced  by  Becker,  who  is 
also  an  advocate  for  the  doubling  of  the  tribes.     That  writer  ob- 
serves :  ^  ^'  The  alteration  which  the  high-minded  king  (Tarquin) 
had  in  view  was  certainly  not  confined  to  the  creation  of  new 
centuries  of  knights  ;  but  probably  new  tribes  were  to  be  instituted, 
in  addition  to  the  three  ancient  ones,  out  of  the  Alban  and  other 
Latin  population  j  or  perhaps  some  regulation  adopted  similar  to 
the  subsequent  one  of  Servius  Tullius."     To  which  he  appends  the 
following  note  :  **  It  is,  at  all  events,  strikmg  that  Dionysius,  in 
speaking  of  Tarquin's  view,  uses  the  word  <f>v\ui  (iii.  71)  :  Ovros  6 
'Nifiios  jSovXo/xcro)  Trore  rw  TapKvrtf^  Tpels  <jiv\d<s  crepas  aTroSe't^ai 
veas  eV'  rojy  vtt  avrov  Ttporcpoy  KaTCLXeyfjLeywy  iKTreiov,  fcai  TTOLijaai  ras 
CTTi^crovs  <l>v\d<s  eavrov  re  kol   twv   iSloyy    iraiptav  iinjjyvfjiovs,  fJLoyos 
ayTUTTE,   (cap.  72)  :    6  N€/3ios   iKtlyo^,  oy  t<t>V^   IvavTiwQriyai  ttotc  r<3 
jSao-tXct  irXeioya^  Cs  iXacraroyioy  TroiijaaL  rds  </)vXas  PovXofxho).    Florus 
says  still  more  strikingly  (i.  5)  :  '  Hie  et  senatus  majestatem  numero 
ampliavit  et  centuriis  tribus  auxit,  quatenus  Attus  iS'^avius  numerum 
augeri  prohibebat;'  where  the  missing  word  to  numerum  cannot 
well  be  supplied  except  by  tribuum.     Lastly,  Festus  says  expressly 
(p.  169,  iVawa):  *  ^N'ani  cum  Tarquinius  Priscus  institutas  tribus  a 
Eomulo  mutare  vellet,'  &c.    Zonaras  also  says  (vii.  8) :  ncwrcos  hk 
KoX  ciXXa  TrXeiu)  kKaiyoT6yir)(T€y  av,  ci />t77  rts  "Attos  Naomos  ras  </)uAas 
avrov  PovXrjdeyra  fxsTaKofffjrjo-aL  KEKioXvKev.     The  foundation  of  the 
passage  of  Dionysius  seems  to  be  an  account,  which  he  misunder- 
stood, that  Tarquin  wished  to  place  the  population  incorporated 
into  the  Eoman  state  by  Tullus  Hostilius  and  Ancus  Marcius  as 
new  tribes  by  the  side  of  the  old ;  which  is  quite  natural,  and  is 
confirmed  by  the  subsequent  regulations  of  his  successor.     That 
Tarquin,  moreover,  wished  to  name  the  new  divisions  after  himself 

1  Rom.  Aherth.  ii.  i.  241. 


256 


HISTOEY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


and  his  friends  offers  no  good  meaning,  if  ^ve  consider  these  divisions 
to  have  been  only  centuries  of  knights,  since  what  Cicero  says, 
'nee  potuit  Titiensiiim,  Eamnensium,  et  Lucerum  mutare  quum 
cuperet  nomina,'  is  certainly  erroneous.  All  authors,  Livy,  Diony- 
sius,  Festus,  Florus,  Valerius  Maximus  (i.  4,  1),  Zonaras,  agree  that 
he  wanted  to  make  a  thorough  alteration.  Aurelius  Victor  alone 
(iii.  6)  says,  like  Cicero,  '  nomina  mutare  non  potuit.' " 

JN'ovv  let  us  examine  these  passages  in  their  order.  First  of  all, 
it  is  manifest,  from  the  allusion  to  Attus  :N'avius,  that  Dionysius 
is  speaking  of  the  very  same  event  as  that  related  by  Livy  ;^ 
namely,  the  adding  of  three  more  centuries  to  the  knights,  because 
his  army  was  deficient  in  cavalry.  But  if  Dionysius  meant  that 
Tarquin  wanted  to  create  three  new  tribes,  not  cavalry,  then  his 
account  is  at  direct  variance  with  Livy's  ;  and  in  that  case  we  cannot 
hesitate  a  moment  which  author  we  should  follow.  But  we  do  not 
believe  that  he  meant  any  such  thing.  He  tells  us  that  Tarquin, 
after  having  enrolled  some  knights^  wanted  to  declare  them  three  new 
tribes,  and  to  name  them  after  himself  and  his  friends.  Xow  this 
account  agrees  substantially  with  Livy's.  The  operation  contem- 
plated by  Tarquin  is  confined  entirely  to  the  knights ;  but  instead 
of  enrolling  his  three  new  centuries  under  the  existing  names  of 
JRamnenses,  &c.  he  wanted  to  call  them  Tarquinienses,  &c.  as  if 
they  had  belonged  to  some  new  tribes.  They  who  adopt  any  other 
interpretation  of  this  passage  must  suppose  that  Dionysius  was 
absurd  enough  to  think  that  tribes  could  be  created  out  of  the 
equestrian  order. 

Kext,  with  regard  to  the  passage  in  Florus.  That  the  missing 
word  to  be  supplied  is  trihuum,  is  just  one  of  those  dashing  asser- 
tions which  Becker  is  accustomed  to  make  when  he  has  a  desperate 
case.  The  equites  were  divided  into  centmnce,  while  the  tribes 
were  divided  into  cur  ice;  and,  therefore,  as  Florus  says,  '' centuriis 
tribus  auxit,"  it  is  evident  that  the  missing  word  to  be  supplied  is 
that  suggested  by  Pighius,  "  auxit  equites!'  And  thus  Florus  also 
agrees  with  Livy. 

The  passage  in  Festus  cannot  by  any  mode  of  interpretation  be 
made  to  imply  that  Tarquin  wanted  to  create  new  tribes.  Festus 
merely  says  that  he  wanted  to  cdter  the  Romulean  tribes, — that  is,  he 
wished  to  change  their  names  ;  and  in  this  Festus  agrees  with  Cicero. 
The  same  remark  applies   to  Zonaras's  expression,  yutTa/cocr/.t^o'at, 

1  Lib.  i.  c.  36. 


DOUBLING   OF  THE  TRIBES. 


257 


which  cannot  signify  the  creation  of  new  tribes ;  though,  indeed, 
it  is  of  very  little  consequence  what  such  an  author  wrote. 

The  use  of  the  words  ^i;\a/  and  tribus  for  cent ur ice  by 
Dionysius  and  Festus  has  led  some  critics  to  consider  that  the 
ancient  stem-tribes  were  identical  with  the  ec^uestrian  centuries ; 
that  the  liamnes,  Titles,  and  Luceres  served  on  horseback,  and 
that  the  infantry  consisted  of  clients.^  But  this  view  is  alto- 
gether inadmissible. 

The  centuries  of  knights,  or  their  names,  came  at  last  to  be 
almost  confounded  with  the  primitive  llomulean  tribes.  The 
original  distinction  between  these  tribes,  Avhich  was  one  of  race, 
must  in  the  course  of  a  century  or  two  have  become  completely 
obliterated  j  the  equestrian  order  was  the  only  institution  which 
perpetuated  their  names  ;  and  thus  we  see  that  in  the  time  of 
Servius  they  were  completely  ignored,  and  the  reforms  of  that 
king  were  framed  on  the  princi})lo  of  a  territorial,  not  an  ethnic, 
distribution  of  the  population. 

We  may  here  further  remark  that  the  ancient  division  of  the 
Roman  territory  among  the  three  tribes  may  have  helped  to 
promote  the  confusion  between  the  terms  tribus  and  centuria.  The 
land  originally  assigned  to  each  tribe,  whether  consisting  of  one  or 
two  acres  for  each  head  of  a  family,  was  called  centuria.  Thus 
Paulus  Diaconus  :  ^  *'  Centuriatus  ager  in  ducena  jugera  definitus, 
quia  Romulus  centenis  civibus  ducena  jugera  tribuit."  And  Varro  : 
*'  Centuria  primo  a  centum  jugeribus  dicta,  post  duplicata  retinuit 
nomen,  ut  tribus  multiplicatie  idem  tenent  nomen."^  Hence 
centuria,  as  the  name  of  the  land  apportioned  to  each  tribe,  and  as 
the  name  of  the  body  of  knights  representing  each  tribe,  might 
easily  come  to  be  confounded  with  the  word  tribus  itself. 

Thus  the  fancied  intention  ascribed  to  Tarquin  of  creating 
new  tribes  rests  on  no  authority  whatever;  and,  so  far  from 
being  confirmed  by  the  regulations  of  his  successor,  is  contro- 
verted by  them.  For  the  co?niiia  centuriata  and  tributa  went  a 
great  way  to  overthrow  the  comitia  curiataj  which  Tarquin  is 
conjectured  to  have  enlarged,  and  were  founded  on  an  entirely 
diilerent  principle.  Why  Tarquin  might  not  have  wished  to  give 
his  name  to  a  century  of  knights  as  well  as  a  tribe  it  is  impossible 


■^^r^ 


Puchta  uud  ^larquardt,  ap  Scliwegler,  i.  686. 


2  r.  53. 


"^  Ling.  Lat. 


1-   "^ !'. 

Y  .     OO. 


258 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   EOME. 


PATKES   MINOKUM    GENTIUM. 


259 


to  divine ;  especially  seeing  that  tlie  names  of  the  tribes  scarcely- 
survived  except  as  tlie  names  of  the  equestrian  centuries.  And 
now  we  will  ask,  Why  is  Cicero  in  error  in  saying  (De  Ixep.  ii.  20) 
that  Tarquin  wanted  to  change  the  nam.es  of  the  centuries  1  Cicero 
does  not  say  that  he  wanted  onlf/  to  do  that,  as  Becker's  words 
would  lead  us  to  think.  He  had  said  just  before  :  "Deinde  equi- 
tatum  ad  hunc  nioreni  constituit,  qui  usque  adhuc  est  retentus." 
In  fact,  there  seem  to  have  been  two  versions  of  Tar(|uin's  method 
uf  proceeding  in  this  matter.  According  to  one  view,  he  wanted, 
besides  increasing  the  number  of  Equites,  to  abolish  the  names 
Eamnenses,  Titienses,  and  Luceres,  and  substitute  for  them  his 
own  name  and  the  names  of  some  friends  :  according;  to  the  other 

r  O 

A'iew,  he  intended  to  retain  the  ancient  centuries  and  their  names, 
and  to  add  to  them  three  other  centuries  with  new  names.  The 
former  seems  to  have  been  the  view  of  Cicero,  Festus  ("  tribus 
mutare  ")  Zonaras,  and  Aurelius  Victor  in  the  passages  cited ;  the 
latter,  of  Dionysius  and  Florus ;  23erhaps  also  of  Livy,  whoso 
language  however  appears  to  indicate  that  both  schemes  had  been 
agitated :  "  Id  quia  inaugurato  Eomulus  fecerat,  negare  Attius 
-N'avius,  inclutus  ea  tempestate  augur,  neque  mutari  neque  novum 
constituly  nisi  aves  addixissent,  posse"  (Lib.  i.  36). 

These  passages,  therefore,  do  not  afford  any  ground  for  the 
assertion  of  Schwegler,  Becker,  and  other  German  writers,  that 
Tarquinius  Priscus  contemplated  the  creation  of  new  tribes ;  they 
refer  only  to  the  creation  of  new  centuries  of  knights.  But,  not 
content  with  asserting  the  creation  of  these  new  tribes,  Sclnvegler 
also  says^  that  they  were  called  secundi  Eamnes,  Titles,  and 
Luceres,  and  also  Patres  minornm  gentium;  thus  confounding  the 
increase  of  the  knights  with  the  increase  of  the  Senate,  and 
regarding  both  as  an  increase  of  the  tribes.  In  support  of  this 
view  he  c^uotes  the  following  from  Cicero  :  **  Duplicavit  pristinum 
patrum  numerum"  (De  Eep.  ii.  20)  :  taking  of  course  i\iQ  pati-es  to 
mean  here  the  patricians  who  formed  the  Curiae,  agreeably  to  his  view 
of  the  ancient  i^opulus.  Kow,  though  -patres  may  sometimes  denote 
the  whole  patrician  body,  yet  there  are  cases  in  which,  from  the 
context,  it  cannot  possibly  do  so ;  and  this  is  one  of  them,  for  the 
passage  in  its  integrity  runs  as  follows  :  "  Isque  ut  de  suo  imperio 
legem  tulit,  principio  duplicavit  ilium  pristinum  patrum  numerum ; 
ct  antiques  patres  majorum  gentium  appellavit,  quos  priores  sen- 

1  S.  687,  f. 


r. 

■  \f 


■*  ■  ■ 


r-. 


% 


tentiam  rogabat ;  a  se  ascitos  minorum."  Here  the  words,  ''sen- 
tcntiam  rogabat,"  show  that  Cicero  is  speaking  of  the  Senate  j  for 
it  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  the  king  asked,  singly  and  in 
Older,  the  opinions  of  3,000  or  J:, 000  men  in  the  Curia?,  or,  after  ho 
had  doubled  them,  G,000  or  8,000  !  It  is  further  incontestably 
shown  from  the  mention  of  "  minorum  gentium "  that  Cicero  is 
speaking  of  the  Senate  :  for  Livy,  in  relating  the  same  event,  says  : 
"  Centum  In  jjcitres  legit,  (jui  deinde  minorum  gentium  sunt  ap- 
pellati:  factio  hand  dubia  regis,  cujus  benclicio  in  curiam  venerant.'^^ 
Xow  these  must  have  been  senators  ;  first,  because  the  choosing  of 
a  hundred  men  could  not  possibly  have  been  a  doubling  of  the 
tribes  ;  and  secondly,  because  *'  in  curiam  " — not  ''  in  curias'' — must 
mean  the  Senate-house ;  and  therefore  the  *'  Patres  minorum 
gentium"  were  senators. 

AYe  see  then,  from  these  passages,  that  it  was  not  through  the 
plehsj  but  through  the  Senate  that  Tarquin  sought  to  strengthen  his 
government,  that  it  was  in  that  body  he  considered  the  political 
power  of  the  state  to  lie.  Tarquin  also  doubled  the  knights  ;  but 
this  was  merely  a  military  measure,  as  appears  from  the  narrative 
of  Livy.     His  army  was  deficient  in  cavalry. 

In  support  of  his  opinion  that  Tarquin  doubled  the  tribes, 
Schwegler  also  adduces  the  folloAving  passage  from  Festus  :  ^  "  Sex 
A^estcC  sacerdotes  constitutoe  sunt,  ut  populus  pro  sua  quaejue  parte 
haberet  ministraiu  sacrorum,  quia  civitas  Romana  in  sex  est  distri- 
buta  partes  :  in  primos  secundosque  Titienses,  Eamnes,  Luceres." 
^Vnd  to  this  passage  he  adds  further  on  ^  the  following,  to  show 
that  Tar(]^uin  also  increased  the  number  of  the  Vestals  to  six,  in 
order  that  they  might  correspond  to  the  new  number  of  tribes  : 
rate    lepcug    TrcipOeyoig    rirrapaiu  au^raig    hvo    TrpoaKUTaXe^ey    Irepug.^ 

Prom  Valerius  Maximus  :  ^  "  (Tarquinius  Priscus)  cultum  deorum 
novis  sacerdotiis  auxit."  Though  according  to  Plutarch,^'  the  addi- 
tion was  first  made  by  Servius  TuUius. 

On  these  passages  let  us  observe  :  first,  that  whilst  Schwegler 
writes  2'ities  in  his  text,  as  of  a  tribe,  his  author  writes  Titienses,  as 
of  an  equestrian  century  :  showing  the  confusion  which  existed 
between  their  appellations  in  later  times,  when  the  names  of  the 
tribes  had  been  long  disused,  except  as  designations  of  the  equestrian 


1  Lib.  i.  35.  «  P.  344,  Sex  Vestse. 

4  Dionys.  iii.  67  ;  of.  ii.  67.  '  Lib.  iii.  4,  2. 

S  2 


3  S.  693,  Anm.  3. 
*  Num.  10. 


260 


IIISTOHY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


centuries:  a  confusion  also  observable  in  Varro,  wlio  uses  both 
forms  indiiferently ;  as  for  example,  in  the  following  passage, 
where  they  appear  in  the  most  admirable  disorder  :  "  Ager  Eomanus 
primum  divisus  in  parteis  tris,  a  (^uo  trlbus  appellata  Tatiensium, 
liamnium,  Luccrum,  nominatie,  ut  ait  Ennius,  Tatiemes  a  Tatio, 
luutinenses  a  Eomulo,  Luceres,  ut  Junius  a  Lucumone  ; ''  ^  where  we 
see  that  the  forms  Eamnenses,  Tatiemes  (ur  Titienses)  might  be 
used  of  tribe  just  as  well  as  llamnes  or  TatUs ;  and  that  this 
practice  must  have  been  at  least  as  old  as  Ennius. 

But  we  must  confess  our  inability  to  understand  Schwegler's 
reasoning  on  this  subject.  At  p.  G87,  he  writes,  as  we  have 
abeady  translated  :  "  These  three  new  lialves  of  tribes  were  called 
secundi  Eamnes,  Titles,  Luceres,  and  the  former  tribes ^tv/mt  Kanines, 
Titles,  and  Luceres  : ''  referring  to  the  above  passage  in  Eestus. 
Again,  at  p.  G93,  he  writes  :  '^  To  Tarquinius  Prisons  is  also 
ascribed  another  regulation  closely  connected  ivith  the  representation  of 
the  stem  races :  he  is  said  to  have  raised  the  numher  of  the  Vestals 
from  four  to  six.  This  w^as  evidently  done  with  the  object  of 
placing  the  third  race  on  an  equaliti/  ivith  the  other  two,  with  rela- 
tion to  the  priesthood  of  the  Yestal  virgins,  since  the  previous 
number  of  four  Yestals  represented  only  the  first  two  races/'  To 
this  last  passage  he  appends  a  note,  in  which  he  again  quotes  the 
passage  in  Eestus  at  full  length,  and  remarks  u])on  it  :  "  AVhere 
however,  three  of  the  Vestals  are  wrongly  referred  to  the  three 
younger  tribes ;  for  in  this  case  there  should  only  have  been  three, 
not  four.  Vestals  in  office  before  the  creation  of  the  younger  tribes." 
Nothing  can  be  juster  than  this  remark :  for  if  the  Vestals  are  to 
be  referred  to  these  (supposed)  six  tribes,  then  we  have  the  absurdi- 
ties that  two  tribes,  the  Eamnes  and  Titles,  must  have  been  on\/m- 
ally  created  2^rimi  and  seciuidi,  to  correspond  with  the  original  lour 
Vestals  ;  tliat  even  the  sectmdi  Eamnes  and  Titles  were  "preferred 
to  the  Luceres,  who  were  not  represented  in  the  Temple  of  Vesta  at 
all,  though  they  were  worthy  enough  to  be  called  one  of  the  three 
stem-tribes,  and  to  be  represented,  like  the  other  two,  by  ten  curiie 
and  a  centuiy  of  knights ;  and  that  these  Luceres,  or  third  stem 
tribe,  were  first  raised  to  their  proper  dignity,  according  to 
:Niebuhrs  untenable  hypothesis,  by  Tarquinius  Priscus,  and  also  at 
once  divided  like  the  others  into  primi  and  secundi  Eor  that  the 
Luceres  were  first  created  by  Tarquin  is  contrary  to  all  evidence. 
^  Ling.  Lat.  v.  55,  where  there  are  no  vaj-icc  lectiones. 


■>«• 


.-s'^'. 
•I; 


INCREASE  OF  THE  VESTALS. 


2G1 


.■if. 
■I" 


^- 

*-■.> 

■  ;«;■ 
^  ;«  - 

•'ft 


■-"1-. 


J-*. 


*-3 


"What  Schw^egler  says  in  his  note  is  a  flat  contradiction  to  what 
lie  says  in  his  text.  In  fact,  there  is  no  ground  wdiatcver  for  sup- 
posing that  the  Vestals  were  in  any  way  connected  with  the  number 
of  the  tribes.  Even  Dionysius,  in  the  passage  cited,  says  no  sucli 
thing,  but  only  that  two  Vestals  were  added,  because  the  occa- 
sions of  performing  their  public  functions  had  so  much  increased 
that  four  no  longer  sufticed.  For,  in  continuation  of  the  extrttct 
given  above,  he  says  :  irXELuriov  ydp  ijCrj  avyreXovfieiior  vitip  TTJg 
TToAfwe  upovpyiwr,  aiQ  e^ei  Tag  t*7s  'E<T7tas  TrapeiraL  OvrjTroXovg,  ovk 
edoKovy  at  Tf.rrnpE'i  dpk-e~iv.  The  only  author  who  affords  the  least 
colour  for  such  a  supposition  is  Eestus,  in  the  passage  in  question  ; 
but,  though  this  is  evidently  only  a  guess,  or  after-construction, 
founded  upon  number,  yet  this  German  critic,  who  on  other  occa^ 
sions  often  wrongly  accuses  the  best  authors  of  such  a  process,  here 
eagerly  seizes  the  passage,  and  arrays  it  against  the  best  testimony 
on  the  other  side.  Xor  can  the  following  passages  from  Cicero  and 
Livy,  which  Schwegler  adduces  in  his  next  note  to  prove  that  the 
number  of  places  in  the  priestly  colleges,  and  consequently  the 
number  of  the  Vestals,  corresponded  with  the  number  of  the  stem- 
tribes,  serve  his  purpose :  Cic.  De  Pep.  ii.  9,  "  Pomulus  ex  singulis 
tribubus  singulos  co-optavit  augures ; "  Liv.  x.  G,  "  Inter  augures 
constat,  imparem  numerum  debere  esse,  ut  tres  antiqua?  tribus, 
Pamnes,  Titienses,  Luceres,  suum  qua'que  augurem  habeant."  In 
fact,  they  show  just  the  reverse  of  what  they  are  brought  to  prove : 
for  thus,  according  to  analogy,  there  ought  to  have  been  originally 
only  three  Vestals,  as  there  -svere  only  three  augurs,  whereas  there 
were /owr.  All  this  hopeless  confusion  arises  merely  from  an  un- 
willingness to  accept  the  testimony  of  the  best  authors,  and  a  readi- 
ness to  adopt  in  preference  that  of  any  obscure  writer,  if  it  can 
only  serve  to  muddle  matters.  Schwegler  flounders  in  inextricable 
difficulties,  merely  because  he  will  not  adopt  the  plain  statements  of 
Cicero  and  Livy,  that  Tarquinius  Priscus  doubled  the  number  of 
the  knights,  and  also  that  of  the  senators  ;  for  we  have  shown  in 
another  place  that  the  addition  of  100  new  members,  minorum 
;/e?2iiiim,  was  in  fiict  a  doubling  of  it,  whatever  Dionysius  may 
dream  to  the  contrary,  and  that  the  subseipicntly  normal  number 
of  300  was  not  attained  till  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings.  A 
<loubling  of  the  tribes  is  only  a  dream. 

It  is  not  Avorth  while  to  enter  into  the  question  whether  TarquiTi 
belonged  to  the  Luceres.    This  is  precisely  one  of  those  "  cobwebs  ' 


262 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


POLICY    OF   THE   TAllQUINS. 


26;^ 


SO  often  found  in  the  brains  of  German  critics.  Of  course  the  kings 
before  Tarquin  alternated  between  the  Ramnes  and  Tities,  -which  is 
only  saying  that  they  alternated  between  the  Eomans  and  Sabines, 
and,  of  course,  Tarquin's  elevation  to  the  throne  was  an  "  innova- 
tion ; "  but,  if  we  follow  right  reason  and  good  authority,  we  know 
where  he  came  from,  and  how  he  obtained  the  throne. 

Schwegler    then    proceeds    to    examine    the   peculiar   political 
character  which  marked  the  Tarquinian  d}Tiasty,  as  follows  : — 

"  In  general  Ave  cannot  fail  to  recognise  that  the  reign  of  the 
Tarquins  bears  a  different  political  character  from  the  epoch  of  the 
preceding  kings;  that  contemporaneously  with  the  rise  of  this 
dynasty  appears  a  political  change,  a  new  order  of  things.  This 
change  is  reflected  in  legend,  or  tradition,  in  the  conflict  of  the 
innovating  king  with  the  augur  Attus  JN'avius.  This  was  doubtless 
no  merely  temporary  altercation,  as  it  appears  in  the  narrative,  but 
a  deeper  and  more  general  conflict  of  principles.  In  this  scene  is 
merely  symbolized  the  contest  of  a  new  political  idea  with  the  old 
state.  This  last  was  a  state  composed  of  families  bound  together  in 
the  straitest  chains  of  religion  and  an  established  church,  which 
not  only  prevented  all  progress  and  development,  but  also,  by  the 
priestly  chai-acter  which  it  bore  and  the  exclusive  spirit  that 
sprung  from  it,  hindered  the  political  unity  of  the  nation.  It  was 
the  object  of  the  Tarquinian  dynasty  to  convert  this  theocratical 
state  into  a  political  one,  to  remove  the  trammels  which  separated 
the  difi'erent  portions  of  the  state  from  one  another,  to  make  it  a 
whole,  and  thus,  with  regard  to  foreign  policy,  to  render  it  stronger 
and  more  capable  of  conquest.  It  is  this  policy  that  is  represented 
as  despotism  in  the  younger  Tarquin,  perhaps  only  through  patrician 
hate.  Perhaps  the  fall  of  the  Tarquins  is  in  part  to  be  referred  to 
this  policy.  According  to  all  appearance  it  was  caused  by  a  reaction 
among  the  old  families ;  and,  as  the  political  and  religious  innova- 
tions of  the  Tarquins  were  partly  influenced  by  Greek  culture,  so 
this  reaction  Avas  an  assertion  and  restoration  of  the  old  national 
characteristics.  This  contest  of  principles  may,  perhaps,  have  been 
founded  on  the  contrast  of  the  Latin  and  Sabine  elements.  :N"othing 
certain  can  be  determined  on  this  subject ;  but  it  is  remarkable 
that  the  transfer  of  the  Albans  and  the  incorporation  of  the  neigh- 
bouring Latin  territories  is  followed  by  the  revolution  which  we 
find^  in  the  Tarquinian  period ;  that  Attus  :N'avius  appears  as  a 
Sabine  ;  that  the  Sabine  sanctuaries  on  the  Capitol  are  compelleil 


to  yield  to  the  Capitoline  Temple  and  worship;  and  that 
after  the  fall  of  the  Tarquins,  the  Sabine  families,  such  as  the 
Valerii,  Fabii,  Claudii,  appear  more  prominently  on  the  political 
stage." 

With  a  good  deal  of  what  precedes  we  are  disposed  to  agree, 
though,  as  is  not  unusual  Avith  German  writers,  the  main  idea  is 
frittered   into    subtleties    which    are    merely   imaginary,    as    those 
respecting  the  Sabine  sanctuaries,   and  the   Sabine  families  that 
appear  after  the  fall  of  the  Tarquins.     The  Tarquins,  from  their 
(Jreek  descent  and  education,  may  very  probably  have  entertained 
a  secret  contempt  for  the  narrow  bigotry  and  superstition  of  the 
Sabines,  and  the  scene  Avith  Attus  IS'avius  is,  perhaps,  only  one  of 
many  of  the  same  sort,  or  rather  a  type  of  them.     Whether  it  ever 
occurred  may  be  very  doubtful,  and  the  miraculous  part  of  it,  if  not 
a  falsehood,  is  of  course  a  trick.     This  is  only  one  of  those  stories 
Avhich  are  found  in  the  early  annals  of  all  nations,  and  especially  of 
theocratic  nations,  which  Rome  Avas  to  a  certain  extent.     Even  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  during  the  reign  of  Calvin  at  Geneva,  it  was 
pretty  generally  believed  that  a  man  had  been  carried  away  bodily 
by  the  devil  over  hedges  and  ditches  and  cast  into  the  Rhone,  and 
Calvin  Avas  very  Avroth  with  those  Avho  had  no  faith  in  the  story.^ 
Livy  relates  the  scene  betAveen  Tarquin  and  the  augur  in  a  Avay 
Avhich  betrays  his  disbelief  of  it ;  and  if  the  statue  of  Attus,  with 
the  miraculous  Avhetstone,  Avas  ever  erected  on  the  Comitium,  it 
had  certainly  vanished  long  before  the  time  of  Livy,  and  even  of 
Cicero,^  though  earlier  monuments  Avere  still  in  existence.     All 
that  is  certain  is  that  there  Avas  some  conflict  betAVcen  Tarquin  and 
the  College  of  Augurs,  Avhich  ended  in  the  decided  victory  of  the 
latter.3     And  it  must  be  remembered  that  to  attack  the  augurs  Avas 
not  only  to   attack  religion,   but  also  to   declare  war  against  the 
patricians,  Avho  Avere  in  i^ossession  of  the  auguries.     It  Avas  there- 
fore a  political,  even  more  than  a  religious  movement,  and  we  shall 
see  it  continued  under  Tarquin's  successors. 

The  increase  of  the  population  through  the  Latins  settled  at 

'  Sec  Dyer's  Life  ot  Ualviii,  j),  205,  sctj. 

2  Cicero  says  :  "  Cotem  autem  illam  et  iiovaculam  defossam  in  comitio, 
siipraque  inipositum  piitcal  acccpimus.'' — De  Diviii.  i.  17.  "  Statua  Attii  in 
gradibiTS  ii)sis  ad  li^evam  ciirii^e  fuit:  cotem  (pioque  eodem  loco  sitam  fuisso 
incmorant.'^—\Av,  i.  36. 

3  "  Auguriis  certe  sacerdotioque  augiirum  tantus  lionos  accessit,  ut  nihil  belli 
domique  postea,  nisi  auspicate,  gcreretur." — Ibid. 


264 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


THE   CAPITOLINE   TRIAD. 


265 


Eome,   and  especially  after  the  conquests  of  Tarqinn  himself,  by 
creating  a  vast  plebeian  body  without  political  rights,  no  doubt 
occasioned  a  necessity  for  those  reforms  which  were   afterwards 
effected  by  Servius  Tullius.     And  here  let  us  pause  a  moment  to 
remark  how   consistent  the   old  tradition   is  with   itself,  what  a 
genuine  historical  character  it  bears  in  its  main  outlines.    After  the 
great  addition  to  the  Eoman  population,  through  the  wars  of  Ancus 
and  Tarquin  the  Elder,   of  a  class  that  had  no  political  rirrbts   it 
would  have  been  impossible  for  Eome,  or  any  otlier  state,  t°o  have 
maintained   unaltered   the   old   order   of    things.      A   revolution 
necessarily  followed    under  Servius-for  the  reforms    of   Servius 
were  nothing   less   than   a   revolution.      Yet  all   this  is    related 
by   the    ancient    writers   in    a   simple,    unaffected    way,    without 
any    pretence    to    historical    deduction    or    political    philosophy 
They  are  merely  transcribing  what  they  found  in  those  simple' 
primitive  annals.     And  yet  it  is  thought  that  all  this  is  nothin^^ 
but  invention  !  ° 

It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  Tarquinius  Priscu^  the 
founder  of  a  usurping  dynasty,  had  anything  more  at  heart,  in  the 
alterations  which  he  made,  than  the  consolidation  of  his  own  power 
The  creation  of  a  new  body  of  knights-that  is,  of  cavalry-seems  to 
have  been  necessary  for  military  purposes ;  though  Tarquin  in  the 
selections  which  he  made,  may  possibly  have  beeu  influenced  by 
views  of  personal  interest.  He  would  willingly  have  given  them 
his  own  name,  a  natural  vanity  in  any  ruler ;  but  that  he  had  any 
idea  of  creating  three  new  tribes,  as  Mebuhr  and  Schwe-ler 
suppose,  seems  to  be  totally  unfounded  and  unproved  His  other 
refom,  the  increase  of  the  Senate  (not  of  the  patricians)  was  evi- 
dently made,  as  Livy  says,  with  the  view  of  supporting  his  own 
power.  ° 

We  think  that  Schwegler's  remarks  about  Eoman  and  Sabine 
elements  are  very  much  overstrained.  The  two  races,  after  co 
habitation  during  more  than  a  century,  must  have  been  pretty  well 
amalgamated.  If  the  Sabine  shrines  on  the  Capitol  were  compelled 
to  give  place  to  the  new  temple,  the  worship  for  which  it  was 
erected  was  certainly  also  Sabine.  But  this  brings  us  to  Schwe-ler^s 
next  section.  ° 

*'The  political  tendency  of  the  Tarquins,  above  described  "  con- 
tinues that  writer,  "is  expressed  in  the  most  evident  and  charac- 
teristic manner  in   the  worship   of    the   three  Capitoline  deities 


wemftift 


■?.^ 


m 


:r.,» 


4-''" 
i-ys.  ' 


established  by  them,  and  so  closely  connected  with  the  Tarquinian 


name. 


li 


The  divine  Triad  of  the  Capitoline  commonly  passes  for  Etruscan,- 
and  the  foundation  of  the  Capitoline  Temple  for  a  monument  of  the 
Etruscan  descent  of  the  Tarquinii.  Eut  this  Triad  was  certainly  not 
borrowed  from  the  Etruscans.  The  grouping  of  Zeus,  Hera,  and 
Athene  appears  also  in  the  religion  of  Greece.^  The  worship  of 
Jupiter  is  found  among  the  Eatins  in  the  remotest  times  :  the 
Jupiter  Latiaris  attests  the  universality  of  it  in  Latium.  The  same 
holds  of  the  worship  of  Juno,  Avhich  was  also  common  among  the 
Sabines  ;  and  thus  Tatius  places  an  altar  of  Juno  Quiritis  in  every 
Curia.  Eastly,  jMinerva,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Yarro,'*  was 
a  deity  of  the  Sabines,  and  introduced  by  them  at  Kome.  We  also 
find  in  the  Sabine  religion  the  united  worship  of  these  three  deities. 
()n  the  Quirinal,  the  original  seat  of  the  Sabines,  stood  the  old 
(vapitol,  Capitolium  Yetus,  said  to  have  been  founded  by  ]N'uma,  a 
temple  of  Jupiter,  Juno,  and  Minerva.^  It  was  also  in  a  war 
against  the  Sabines  that  Tarquinius  Priscus  vowed  a  temple  to  the 
( 'apitoline  deities,  evidently  as  being  the  gods  of  the  enemy. 

'*  If  we  further  remark  that  each  of  the  three  deities  was  separately 
reverenced  by  the  Latins  and  Etruscans  as  well  as  by  the  Sabines, 
we  shall  perceive  that  the  Ca])itoline  worship  was  a  religious  centre 
for  the  different  component  parts  of  the  Eoman  nation ;  and  this 
was  no  doubt  the  original  motive  for  founding  it.  And  thus  it 
became  a  bond  of  union." 

With  the  above  remarks,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  Capitoline 
worship  and  Temple,  we  entirely  concur.  Only,  as  Schwegler  him- 
self shows  that  the  worship  w^as  introduced  at  Eome  long  before  the 
time  of  the  Tarquins,  and  assumes  that  even  the  new  Capitoline 
Temple  was  vowed  by  Tarquin  the  Elder  in  a  war  against  the  Sabines, 

^  Schwegler,  in  a  note  (p.  C96,  Aiim.  1),  adverts  to  an  etymoloj^ical  resem- 
blance or  connexion  which  some  German  critics  have  pointed  out  between  the 
name  of  Tarquinius  and  Tarpeius,  tlic  ^;  being  cliangcd  into  qu.  Then  follows 
the  usual  German  process  of  induction  :  "  But  if  Tanjuinius  means  the  same  as 
Tarpeius,  we  may  easily  suspect  that  the  name  of  tliat  sovereign  family  is 
directly  derived  from  the  Tarpeian  Hill.  AVhat  if  the  Tar([uinians  were  so  named 
by  the  legend  as  if  they  were  the  Capitoline  djTiasty? "  Thus  we  may  have  thcni 
as  a  Latin  family,  a  Roman  family — anything  but  what  they  really  were. 

-  According  to  a  passage  in  Servius,  ^En.  i.  422. 

3  Pausan.  vii.  20,  2  ;  x.  5,  2.  *  Ling.  Lat.  v.  74. 

5  Ibid.  158. 


■i  ft, 


266 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


_5P 


TARQUINIAN   WORKS    CONSIDERED. 


267 


6/ 


because  tlie  Triad  to  be  worshipped  in  it  were  Sabine  deities,  we  are 
unable  to  see  the  connexion  of  all  these  remarks  with  his  opening 
^proposition  :  that  the  establishment  of  this  worship  characterized 
the  political  tendency  of  the  Tarquins.  Tor  it  might  just  as  well 
be  said  to  characterize  the  political  tendency  of  Numa,  who  is 
thought  to  have  first  established  it  at  Eome,  or  of  the  following 
kings,  who  maintained  it. 

''  To  the  policy  of  the  Tarquins,"  continues  Schwegler,^  "  Kome 
owes  the  elevation  which  she  attained  at  that  epoch.  How  con- 
siderable was  the  extension  of  the  Roman  dominion  under  the 
younger  Tarquin  is  known  from  credible  and  partly  contemporary 
records.  Bat  that  under  the  elder  Tarquin  Eome  must  have 
already  reached  a  high  degree  of  power  is  shown  by  the  buildings 
of  this  king,  which  could  not  have  been  undertaken  without  the 
resources  of  a  powerful  state.  Tradition  supplies  us  not  with  data 
for  explaining  this  state  of  things.  For  the  extent  of  the  Roman 
territory,  even  after  the  conquests  of  Ancus  ^larcius,  was  still  very 
moderate  ;  and  the  national  wealth  of  a  people  that  lived  only  by 
agriculture  and  pasturage,  that  was  without  trade  and  maritime 
commerce,  cannot  have  been  considerable.  Connecting  links  are 
here  wanting.  From  the  Tarquinian  works,  those  gigantic  build- 
ings, which  are  comparable  to  the  Pyramids  in  magnificence,  those 
dumb  witnesses  of  a  time  that  has  disappeared,  we  may  measure 
how  deep  a  night  still  rests  on  the  history  of  that  epoch." 

The  concluding  remarks  are  only  too  true.  We  know  but  little 
of  the  regal  times  ;  first,  because,  as  Livy  says,  letters  were  rare  at 
that  period,  that  is,  as  compared  w^ith  after  times ;  and  secondly, 
because  of  that  little  some  no  doubt  perished  through  the  effects  of 
time  and  the  Gallic  conflagration.  But  the  little  that  we  have  is, 
we  think,  for  the  most  part  genuine  ;  and  especially  we  cannot 
agree  with  some  modern  writers,  that  the  memory  of  kings  capable 
of  executing  those  magnificent  works  perished  so  entirely  in  a  few 
centuries  that  even  their  names  and  their  very  existence  may  be 
doubted. 

But  in  the  preceding  passage  Schwegler  is  guilty  of  two  opposite 
faults,  exaggeration  and  extenuation.  It  is  certainly  exaggerating 
to  compare  the  Tarquinian  works  with  the  pyramids.  During  the 
period  of  about  a  century  through  which  their  dynasty  lasted,  those 
works  were  :  the  Cloaca  Maxima  ;  the  Tabernss  Yeteres  on  the 

1  Buck  XV.  §  15. 


.i 


O.i 


I: 


in  . 


northern  side  of  the  Forum ;  the  Temple  of  Saturn  ;  the  rudiments 
of  the  Circus  ;  these  in  the  reign  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  who  also 
prepared  the  ground  for  the  foundation  of  the  Capitoline  Temple, 
and  formed  the  plan  of  and  partly  executed  the  wall  afterwards 
finished  by  Servius.  Besides  completing  this  wall,  Servius  also 
built  a  Temple  of  Diana  on  the  Aventine,  and  two  or  three  other 
temples,  and  added  the  TuUianum  to  the  prison  of  Ancus.  The 
chief  work  of  the  younger  Tarquin  was  the  completion  of  the 
Capitoline  Temple. 

Xow,  without  denying  that  these  were  magnificent  works,  we  see 
no  improbability  in  their  having  been  executed  in  the  time  given, 
when  we  find  that  Numa  had  already  founded  several  temples,  and 
that  Tullus  Hostilius  had  built  the  Curia,  which  served  for  the 
Senate-house  during  several  centuries.  The  only  Tarquinian  works 
that  deserve  the  epithet  gigantic  are  the  Cloaca,  the  wall,  and  the 
Capitol.  How  long  the  first  was  in  executing  we  have  no  means  of 
knowing ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  wall  was  in  hand  during  two 
reigns,  and  the  Capitol  perhaps  three.  And  the  Servian  walls  did 
not  after  all  much  exceed  in  compass  those  of  the  neighbouring 

city  of  Yeii. 

With   regard   to  the   means  for  the  execution  of  these  works, 
which  Schwegler  extenuates,  we  may  observe,  first,  that  the  elder 
Tarquin  brought  with  him  enormous  wealth  to  Rome,  besides  the 
taste  and  intelligence  which  led  him  to  project  them  :  secondly, 
that  the  national  wealth  was  not  only  derived  from  agriculture  and 
pasturage,  as  Schwegler  states,  who  seems  unwilling   to  let  the 
Romans  get  on  too  fast.   Although  we  cannot  agree  with  Mommsen 
that  Rome  was  a  great  maritime  and  commercial  city,  yet   it  is 
evident  that  she  began  to  have  some  maritime  commerce  at  least 
as  early  as  the  time  of  Ancus,  who  would  otherwise  have  had  n«> 
reason  for  founding  Ostia ;  and  that  her  trade  had  very  consider- 
ably increased  before  the  expulsion  of  the  kings  is  shown  by  the 
treaty  made  with  the  Carthaginians  in  the  first  year  of  the  Republic. 
Besides  these  sources  there  was  also  the  booty  taken  in  long  and 
successful   wars,  which   must   have   been  very   considerable,  and 
perhaps  tribute  from  some  of  the  conquered  cities.     Thus  we  are 
expressly  told  that  the  younger  Tarquin  devoted  the  spoils  taken 
at  Suessa  Pometia  to  the  completion  of  the  Capitoline  Temple.^ 

"Dionysius  relates," 2  continues  Schwegler,  "that  the  elder  Tar- 

1  Liv.  i.  53.  *  Lib.  iii.  c.  62—65. 


268 


HISTORY   or   THE   KIXGS    OF   ROME. 


quinius  reduced  all  Etruria  under  liis  dominion  hy  liis  great  victory 
at  Eretum,  and  ruled  thereafter  as  the  acknowledged  head  of  the 
twelve  Etruscan  states.  If  this  was  so,  if  Eome  was  then  the  capital 
of  a  king  of  Etruria,  the  Tarquinian  buildings  may  he  explained 
without  much  flifliculty.  But  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  ac- 
count, which  is  found  only  in  Dionysius,  is  in  this  form  unhis- 
torical ;  and  the  more  certainly  so,  because  Dionysius  relates  the 
same  thing  of  Servius  Tullius,  without  mentioning,  at  a  later 
period,  the  dissolution  of  this  domination  over  Etruria.  Cicero  and 
Livy  are  ignorant  of  this  Etruscan  connexion,  or  are  purposely 
silent  about  it :  Livy,  indeed,  indirectly  excludes  it,  by  mentioning 
under  the  reign  of  Servius  Tullius  that  the  treaties  with  Yeii  had 
expired  :  ^  [meaning,  of  course,  those  which  Ancus  Marcius  must 
have  made  with  them  when  they  ceded  the  Ma3sian  Forest.]  The 
later  tradition  -  seems  to  have  connected  the  Roman  Tarquin  with 
the  Etruscan  Tarchon,  the  eponymous  hero  of  Tarquinii  and  mythi- 
cal founder  of  the  twelve  cities.  Hence,  perhaps,  the  origin,  as 
Niebuhr  has  conjectured, -"^  of  that  fabulous  legend  which  represents 
Tarquin  as  the  head  of  Etruria. 

'*  Modern  inquirers  (Niebuhr,  Levesque,  ^Miiller)  have  built  upon 
the  account  of  Dionysius  the  hypothesis  that  Eome  in  the  Tar- 
quinian  period  became  a  city  of  the  Etruscan  confederation,  having 
been  conquered  by  a  Tuscan  prince,  who  made  it  his  residence,  and 
adorned  it  with  those  magnificent  buildings. 

"  Lut  there  is  too  little  ground  for  such  a  conjecture.  That 
there  was  once  a  period  when  Eome  and  Latium  were  subject  to 
Etruria  is,  indeed,  not  improbable ;  an  obscure  memory  of  it  is 
connected  with  the  names  of  Mezentius  and  Porsena.  But,  accord- 
ing to  all  traces  that  we  possess,  the  Tarquinian  period  was  not 

^  "Jam  enim  iiidutioe  exicraiit." — Lib.  i.  42.  Thctenn  of  this  truce  is  not 
mentioned  ;  but  it  was  probably  for  fifty  years  (or  forty-two  solar  years),  when 
it  would  have  expired  early  in  the  reign  of  Servius. 

2  By  the  "later  tradition,"  Scliwegler  seems  to  mean  the  account  in 
Bionj'sius.  But  there  can  have  been  no  earlier  or  later  traditioji ;  all  tradi- 
tion must  have  ceased  with  the  first  annalists.  The  account  in  Dionysius  was 
most  probably  an  invcnticn,  for,  writing  for  the  Greeks,  he  sometimes  amused 
himself  in  that  way  ;  or  it  was  at  all  events  taken  from  an  unauthorized 
source.  The  story  of  the  conquest  of  Etruria  by  Tarquin  may  just  as  probably 
have  arisen  from  his  successes  against  them  when  serving  under  Ancus  as 
from  the  confounding  of  him  with  the  Etruscan  Tarchon. 

'  Rom.  Gesch.  i.  401. 


CONQUEST   OF   ETRURIA. 


2G9 


H 


subject  to  Etruscan  influence  and  dominion.  The  political  reforms 
of  the  first  Tarquin  are  entirely  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  Etruscan 
aristocracy ;  while  the  rule  of  tlie  younger  Tarquin  resembles  a 
Greek  tyranny.  In  their  foreign  policy,  too,  both  the  Taiquins, 
and  particularly  the  younger  one,  are  exclusively  occupied  with 
Latium,  and  Etruria  during  their  rule  falls  completely  into  the 
background.  Lastly,  Gaia  Caicilia,  the  mythical  prototype  of  a 
lioman  housewife,  is  evidently  regarded  in  the  myth  as  a  Koman 
by  birth  :  as  it  would  be  difficult  to  discover  how  the  legend  should 
have  ascribed  the  part  of  a  pattern  of  domestic  manners  to  an  immi- 
grant Etruscan  woman.  She  is  evidently  no  historical  personage, 
and  her  marriage  with  Tarquinius  Priscus  must  be  put  on  the  same 
footing  as  that  of  Egeria  with  Numa,  or  Eortuna  with  Servius 
Tullius." 

Scliwegler  has,  no  doubt,  come  to  a  right  conclusion  in  rejecting 
altogether  Dionysius's  story  of  the  conquest  of  Etruria  by  Tar- 
quinius Priscus.  The  absurdity  of  it  is  shown  at  once  by  the 
simple  fact  that  this  conquest  of  a  large  and  jiovveiful  confederacy  is 
ascribed  to  a  single  victory,  and  that,  too,  achieved  not  within  the 
limits  of  Etruria  but  at  Eretum,  a  Sabine  town  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Tiber !  It  is  by  sucb  inventions  as  this  that  Dionysius  has 
brought  discredit  on  the  early  lioman  history ;  at  all  events  with 
those  critics  who  count  authorities  instead  of  weighing  them,  and 
place  Dionysius,  Plutarch,  Elorus,  and  Zonaras  on  the  same  line 
with  Cicero  and  Livy.  Sir  Cr.  C.  Lewis  has  also  pointed  to  another 
absurdity,^  that  Tarquin,  after  reducing  the  Etruscans  to  subjec- 
tion, "  treats  them  with  the  most  romantic  magnanimity,  exacting 
from  them  nothing  more  than  an  acknowledgment  of  his  nominal 
suzerainty."  This  reproach  applies  properly  only  to  Dionysius  and 
not  to  the  history ;  but  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  does  not  draw  this  distinc- 
tion. Niebuhr  also  ridicules  the  narrative  of  Tarquin's  wars  in 
Dionysius.  "  Of  the  wars,"  he  writes,  *'  ascribed  to  L.  Taripiinius, 
Dionysius,  adopting  the  forgeries  of  very  recent  annalists,  has  given 
an  intolerable  newspaper  account."^  Yet  though  ]N"iebulir  rejects 
the  Etruscan  Avars  as  wholly  unhistorical,  he  founds  a  conjecture 
upon  them  ^  that  a  Tuscan  might  have  seized  the  Eoman  throne  ; 

1  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  472. 

2  lloni.  Gesch.  i.  374  (vol.  i.  p.  358,  En<;l.  transl.).  That  Dionysius  wrote 
after  Annals  is  inferred  by  Kicbuhr  from  the  Fasti  Triunq)hales  (Ibid.  S. 
390).  *  Ibid.  307. 


"«  K 

:,<« 


270 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


Sill   G.    C.   LEAVISS   OBJECTIONS. 


271 


thus  reversing  the  account,  and  founding,  upon  Avliat  lie  considers 
to  be  totally  unworthy  of  belief,  another  and  different  hypothesis ! 

The  question  about  Tanaquil  and  Gaia  Ciecilia  we  have  already 
examined,^  and  shown  them  to  be  identical ;  therefore  the  ^'  myth," 
as  Schwegler  styles  it,  could  not  have  regarded  her  as  a  Eomau ;  and 
it  would  be  just  as  "difficult  to  discover"  why  an  Etruscan  woman 
naturalized  at  Eome  might  not  become  the  pattern  of  a  good  house- 
wife, as  why  she  might.  These  are  barren  subtleties,  but  we  are 
compelled  to  answer  them,  or  it  would  be  said  that  they  are  unan- 
swerable. Nor  id  it  easy  to  see,  according  to  ordinary  lights,  why 
a  marriage  with  an  Etruscan  woman  should  be  on  a  par,  as  regards 
credibility,  with  a  marriage  with  a  fabulous  deity,  or  a  personified 
accident. 

Schwegler's  sixteenth  section,  and  last  of  this  book,  is  devoted  to 
the  story  of  Attus  Xavius.  In  it  he  explains  at  length,  with  that 
confidence  which  marks  the  German  writers  of  his  school,  the  origin 
of  the  story,  as  if  he  had  been  actually  present  at  the  whole  pro- 
cess. We  need  not  follow  him  into  this  profundity,  because,  as  we 
have  before  said,  the  whole  matter  was  a  bit  of  priestcraft,  and 
evidently  so  considered  by  Liv3^  But  this  forms  no  objection  to 
the  general  credibility  of  the  history  of  Tarquin. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  objections  to  this  history,  besides  his  ordinary 
one  of  want  of  historical  attestation,  are  the  following  :^ — "  The 
wars  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  are  described  at  considerable  length  by 
Dionysius ;  but,  although  he  is  acquainted  with  some  of  their 
minutest  details,  and  narrates  them  as  if  he  had  a  series  of  official 
despatches  before  him,  other  writers  omit  all  mention  of  the  majority 
of  them,  and  appear  scarcely  to  have  heard  of  their  occurrence. 
The  stories  again  w^hich  connect  the  name  of  Tarquin  with  certain 
monuments  and  public  works,  such  as  the  statue  of  Attus  Xavius, 
are  liable  to  the  same  suspicion  of  a  legendary  origin  which  we 
have  found  in  other  similar  accounts.  They,  moreover,  fluctuate 
between  him  and  other  kings,  as  in  the  legend  of  the  foundation  of 
the  Temple  of  Capitoline  Jupiter.  His  alleged  introduction  of  the 
fasces  and  other  royal  insignia,  from  Etruria,  appears  in  an  equally 
unsteady  light.  Even  if  the  narrative  of  his  reign  were  better 
attested,  many  circumstances  in  it  would  raise  a  doubt  of  its  credi- 
bility :  the  story  of  the  eagle  Hying  away  with  his  cap,  and  the 
cuttmg  of  the  whetstone  by  Attus  Il^avius,  are  purely  marvellous ; 


■m 


Above,  p.  238,  seq. 


*  Credibility,  &e.,  vol.  i.  p.  478. 


the  manner  of  his  introduction  into  Ivome,'  and  of  his  election  to 
the  royal  dignity,  is  improbable,  and  his  triumphant  wars  against 
the  Latins,  Sabiiies,  and  Etruscans,  without  a  single  important  re- 
verse, lie  beyond  the  limits  of  credibility," 

Dionysius's  narrative  of  the  wars  of  Tarquinius  Priscus  is,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  a  reflection  only  upon  that  historian  himself,  and 
not  upon  the  history  ;  and  for  the  same  reason  these  wars  must  be 
struck  out  of  the  catalogue  of  "  triumphant  wars"  with  which  Sir 
G.  C.  Lewis  concludes  his  paragraph.     There  remain  then  only  the 
wars  with  the  Sabincs  and  Latins.     The  statement  that  these  are 
conducted  "  without  a  single  important  reverse,"  is  incorrect.     At 
the  beginning  of  the  Sabine  AVar,  Tarquin  met  with  a  reverse  so 
important  that  the  enemy  approached  the  walls  of  Pome,  and  the 
Romans  trembled  for  the  safety  of  their  city.^     Tarquin  was  glad 
of  a  respite  to  recruit  his  army,  and  especially  to  strengthen  his 
cavalry.     The  conquest  of  Latium,  as  we  have  seen,  is  ell'ected  by 
the  reduction  of  its  cities  one  after  the  other ;  the  Latins  made  no 
united  eftort  for  their  defence,-  a  fact  which  shows,  as  we  have 
already  had  occasion  to  observe,  that  there  was  not  much  political 
cohesion  in  the  Latin  League ;  and  what  little  there  may  once  have 
been  must  have  been  diminished  by  the  capture  of  Alba  Longa,  its 
metropolis,  in  the  reign  of  Tullus.     Where,  then,  is  the  incredi- 
bility, or  rather  even  the  improbability,  of  these  wars  ?     Are  we  not 
to  allow  to  the  Pomans  some  superiority  of  race  and  organization  ? 
And  if  not,  how  are  wa  to  account  for  their  final  conquest  of  the 
world  ?     AVe  may  confidently  affirm  that  this  could  not  have  been 
achieved  unless  Rome  had  made  some  such  beginnings  as  we  read 
of  in  her  early  history. 

We  abandon  the  story  of  Attus  iSTavius,  that  of  the  eagle  flying 
away  with  Tar([uin's  cap,  and  all  the  other  miraculous  parts  of  his 
history,  as  they  were  abandoned  by  all  sensible  Pomans  two  thousand 
years  ago.     Cicero  rejects  these  stories,^  but  he  does  not,  therefore, 

^  "  Idemque  Sabinos,  ([iiinii  a  iiuciii1>u.s  urbis  ici-ulissct,  eqiiitatu  fudit 
bolloquc  devieit." — Cic,  Do  Kep.  ii.  20.  "  Itaquc  trepklatum  Iioma'  est  ;  et 
diibia  victoria  magna  utrimque  ca^de  pugiiatum  est." — Liv.  i.  36. 

2  "  Ubi  iius(piain  ad  uiiiversaj  rci  diinicationeiu  ventimi  est." — Liv.  i.  38. 

3  "  Sed  tameii  noniuilli  isti,  Titc,  faciiuit  impcrite,  qui  in  isto  periculo  non 
ut  a  poeta,  sed  ut  a  teste  veritatem  cxigant.  Nee  diibito  quin  lideiii  et  cuiu 
Egeria  collocutum  Nimiam,  et  ab  aquila  Tarquinio  apicem  imposituiii 
putent." — Do  Leg.  i.  1.  And  of  Attus  ISTavius  :  "  Omittc  igitur  lituuni 
Uoniuli,  quoin  in  maximo  incendio  ncgas  potuisse  conibuii  ;  contemne  cotom 


272 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   EOME. 


INTRODUCTION   OF   REGAL   INSIGNIA. 


273 


uncritically  reject  all  the  early  history  in  a  lump  ;  because  he  knew 
that  the  invention  and  the  belief  of  such  stories  were  in  unison 
with  the  manners  of  those  early  times ;  and  may,  perhaps,  even 
have  considered  that  the  presence  of  them  was  a  proof  of  its  genuine- 
ness ;  for,  as  we  have  before  observed,  a  wholly  rationalistic  history 
which  pretended  to  have  come  down  from  those  times  would  as- 
suredly have  been  false  and  forged. 

AVhen  it  is  said  that  the  monuments  and  public  works  connected 
with  the  name  of  Tarquin  are  liable  to  the  suspicion  of  a  legendary 
origin,  this  is  not  saying  much,  because  everything  may  be  liable  to 
suspicion,  especially  from  critics  inclined  that  way ;  and  because 
nothing  is  adduced  to  justify  it  with  regard  to  the  public  works, 
though  they  are  invidiously  connected  with  the  statue  of  Attus 
l^avius;  unless  it  be  meant  as  a  ground  of  suspicion  that  the 
stories  "  fluctuate  between  him  (Tarquin)  and  other  kings,  as  in  the 
legend  of  the  foundation  of  the  Temple  of  Capitoline  Jupiter."  But 
there  is  no  fluctuation  whatever.  The  authorities  unanimously  say 
that  Tarquinius  Priscus  vowed  the  temple  in  the  Sabine  War,  and 
prepared  the  foundations  of  it.i    Whether  anything  was  done  by 

Attn  Navii.     Nihil  debet  esse  in  pliilosopliia  commentitiis  fabellis  loci."— De 
Div.  ii.  38. 

^  ".Edemque  in  Capitolio  Jovi  Optimo  Maximo  bello  Subiiio  in  ipsa  pngna 
vovissefaciendam."— Cic.  De  Rep.  ii.  20.     "Etareamail  aidcm  in  Capitolio 
Jovis,  quam  voverat  bello  Sabino  . . .  oecnpat  fundamentis."— Liv.  i.  38.   iKuvos 
ydp,  4v  rS.  TcAeuraiV  TroXefxc^  iJ.ax6/iieyos  npU  ::^apiuov5  ev^aro  T(p  Aii Kal  rfj^Upa 
Koi  rf}  "Ad-qpa.  iav  viKri<Tri  rfj  fxdxr),vaovs  avTo7s  KaTaaK^vdixeLy  Koi  rhv  }xkv  CKOir^Kov 
ivda  Idpvaea-daL  e^ueAAe  rots  6eous,    dvaX-^/uLfxaai  re   Kal  x^^H-a-ri  fX€yd\ois  i^eipyd- 
(raro,  k.  t.  A.— Dionys.  iv.  59  ;  cf.  iii.  69.     "Voverat  Tarquinius  Priscus  rex 
bello   Sabino,   jeceratciue   fundamenta."— Tae.    Hist.    iii.    72.     Why  Becker 
should  assert  that  it  is  not  probable  the  elder  Tarquin  should  have  i)reparcd 
tlie    foundations   is   incomprehensible.      It   is   a   gross   misinterpretation   of 
Dionysius  to  say  that  he  represents  the  elder  Tarquin  as  having  conq^leted  the 
substruction  ( "  selbst  den  Unterbau  vollendet ' ').     On  the  contrary,  that  author 
says   expressly  in  the   latter    passage  :   tovs  S«    OifieXiovs  oCk  t^pdaae    OeTyai 
rod  viw.     The  word  dvaK-q^^a  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  architectural  sense,  but 
in  its  general  sense,  meaning  an  elevating,  raising.     This  is  shown,  lirst,by  its 
being  followed  by  x^^F-o.-     According  to  Becker's  method  the  foundation  wouM 
first  have  been  laid,  and  then  the  earth  heai)ed  up  !     For  the  foundations  of 
the  actual  building,  the  stones,  Dionysius  uses  the  word  e^/uL^Mos,  \idos  being 
understood.     Second,  by  the  fact  that  the  temple  was  built  on  a  huge  jdal"^ 
form,  or  podium,  like  some  of  the  temples  at  Ponq)eii.     This  podium  was  what 
Taniuin  the  Elder  prepared.    Third,  because  if  Dionysius  had  here  meant  thnt 
this  king  finished  the  foundations,  he  would  have  been  guilty  of  a  gross  ccn- 


'<■< 


■y, 
■'-■,* 


y-fi 


Servius  Tullius  seems  doubtful.  The  completion  of  the  war  would 
l)robably  have  engrossed  all  his  resources,  and  what  he  did  to  the 
temple  was  perhaps  little.  Tacitus  is  the  only  author  ^  who  men- 
tions his  participation  in  tlie  work  ;  the  rest  may  have  omitted  his 
share  from  its  unimportance.  Lut  all  the  authorities  are  agreed 
that  the  temple  was  flnished,  or  very  nearly  so,  by  Taripiinius 
Supcrbus.-  The  only  author  from  whom  a  doubt  could  be  extracted 
is  Pliny  the  Elder,  who  in  one  j^lace  represents  Tarquinius  Priscus 
as  employing  Yolcanius  of  Veii  to  make  the  statue  for  the  temj^le ; 
Avhilst,  inconsistently  with  himself,  in  another  very  doubtful  and 
perhaps  corrupt  passage,  he  calls  the  artist  Turranius  of  Tregelhe.^ 
That  the  stories  fluctuate  is  therefore  a  random  assertion,  made 
'^  stans  pede  in  uno,"  and  without  that  caution  which  the  ancient 
writers  are  entitled  to  from  their  critics. 

The  question  about  the  introduction  of  the  fasces  and  other  royal 
insignia  is  a  mere  piece  of  antiipiarianism,  a  question  of  millinery 
and  upholstery,  about  which  ancient  authors  might  easily  differ 
without  damaging  the  credibility  of  the  history  in  its  more  im- 
portant points ;  though,  after  all,  there  is  not  even  here  so  great  a 
difference  among  them  as  is  asserted.  Livy,  rightly  construed, '  says 
only  tliat  Komulus  took  the  twelve  lictors  from  the  Etruscans  ;  and 
even  that,  as  he  shows,  was  doubtful,  for  some  thought  the  number 
of  them  derived  from  the  twelve  augural  birds.  Tarquinius 
Priscus  may  have  subsequently  introduced  a  greater  pomp  from 
Etruria — the  sella  curulis,  the  ivory  sceptre,  the  embroidered 
robe,  the  golden  crown  :  not,  however,  from  having  conquered  the 
Etruscans,  but,  more  probably,  because  having  lived  among  them  in 
his  youth,  he  felt  a  satisfaction  in  assuming  at  Home  insignia  to 
which  he  had  been  forbidden  to  aspire  at  Tarquinii.  But  the  whole 
question  is  unimportant.  That  the  manner  of  Tarquin's  introduc- 
tion into  Eome,  and  of  his  election  to  the  royal  dignity,  is  impro- 
bable, is  a  more  serious  objection.  But  we  confess  that  we  cannot 
see  it  in  this  light.  That  hospitable  city  which  had  received  into 
its  bosom,  without  inquiry  or  choice,  refugees  from  all  parts,  that 

tradiction  ;  w^hich,  however,  it  may  bo  said,  would  not  be  wonderful  in  that 
author.     It  is  this  podium,  or  basis,  that  Livy  and   Tacitus   mean  by  the 
word  fandanwnta, — RiJm.  Altertli.  B.  i.  S.  395,  Anm.  767. 
^  Log.  cit. 

2  Cic.  Do  Rep.  ii.  24  ;  Liv.  i.  53,  55  ;  Dionys.  iv.  61  ;  Tae.  loc.  cit. 

3  Plin.  H.  N.  xxviii.  4  ;  xxv.  45,  s.  157;  cf.  iii.  9,  s.  70.  ■»  Lib.  i.  8. 

T 


274 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  KOME. 


GENEALOGY  OF  SERVIUS  TULLIUS. 


to 


was  daily  augmenting  its  population  by  admitting  among  it  the 
conquered  peoples  around,  may  well  have  opened  its  gates  readily 
to  a  rich  stranger  like  Tarquin ;  and  those  who  read  Livy  atten- 
tively will  see  that  it  was  his  knowledge  of  this  readiness  that  in- 
duced him  to  go  thither.  The  way  in  which  he  obtained  the  crown 
has  been  already  related ;  we  have  nothing  further  to  add  to  it,  by 
way  of  convincing  those  who  hold  it  to  be  improbable.  But  for 
our  own  joarts — the  Koman  king  being  elective,  however  much  the 
children  of  a  king  may  seem  to  have  had  a  claim  of  preference — we 
see  no  more  improbability  in  the  election  of  Tarquin  than  in  that 
of  any  of  his  predecessors  or  successors. 

AVe  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  miraculous  circumstances 
attending  the  birth  of  Servius  Tullius. 

We  have  given  above  from  Livy  the  commonly-received  account 
of  his  birth  and  education.  There  were,  however,  several  other 
traditions  res2)ecting  it,  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  which  was 
the  following  : — As  one  day  Ocrisia — such  was  the  name  of  the 
captive  of  Corniculum — was  offering  cakes  to  the  Lar  at  the  hearth 
of  the  palace,  he  appeared  to  her  in  the  midst  of  the  fire  in  the 
shape  of  a  2)hallus  ;  a  sort  of  extemporary  marriage  took  place,  and 
Ocrisia  became  pregnant  with  Servius  Tidlius.^  There  are  several 
other  versions  of  the  story,  but  we  need  mention  only  two.  Thus 
Servius  is  said  to  have  been  the  son  of  a  female  slave  of  Tarquin's 
by  one  of  his  clients  ;  ^  and  another  account  of  his  genealogy  is  that 
given  by  the  Emperor  Claudius  in  a  speech  to  the  Senate,  frag- 
ments of  which,  engraved  on  bronze  tablets,  were  found  at  Lyons, 
of  which  place  Claudius  was  a  native,  in  1528,  and  are  still  pre- 
served there  in  the  Palais  des  Beaux  Arts.^  In  this  speech  \\v. 
says  :  ''If  we  follow  our  own  authors,  Servius  Tullius  was  the 
son  of  the  captive  Ocrisia :  but  according  to  the  Tuscans  he  was 
the  faithful  friend  of  Ciclius  Vivenna,  and  the  companion  of  all 
his  adventures.  Driven  at  length  by  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune 
from  Etruria  with  the  remainder  of  the  Ca3lian  army,  he  occupied 
Mount  Cielius,  which  he  named  after  his  general;  and  having 
changed  his  name,  for  his  Tuscan  one  was  Mastarna,  he  called 
himself,  as  I  have  said,  Servius  Tullius,  and  obtained  the  kingdom, 
to  the  great  advantage  of  the  state." 

The  true  history  of  the  birth  of  Servius  Tullius  we  cannot  hope 

^  Plin.  H.  N.  xxxvi.  70,  s.  204  ;  Ov.  Fast.  vi.  627,  scq. ;  Dioiiys.  iv.  2. 
2  Cic.  De  Hep.  ii.  21.  3  They  are  printed  in  Gruter,  Thes,  p.  502. 


-  -If 


"**■?. 


■  %•» 


•'«- 


t 


to  discover.  It  was  a  secret  of  the  palace.  TJie  testimony  of  the 
Emperor  CLaudius  may  be  accepted  for  the  fact  that  the  Tuscans 
believed  Servius  Tullius  to  have  been  one  of  their  own  condottterL 
Claudius  was  a  learned  man.  He  is  said  to  have  invented  three 
new  letters  of  the  alphabet,  and  to  have  written  in  Greek  a  Tyrrhe- 
nian history,  in  twenty  books,  and  a  Carthaginian  history  in  eight. 
How  he  prided  himself  on  them  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  he  founded  at  Alexandria  a  new  museum,  in  which,  and  the 
old  one,  these  histories  were  to  be  alternately  recited  every 
year.i  This,  no  doubt,  brought  the  history  of  Cables  Vibenna,  and 
his  lieutenant  Mastarna,  into  fashion,  and  accounts  for  Tacitus 
ascribing  the  colonization  of  that  hill,  though  in  a  hesitating  way, 
to  the  time  of  Tarquinias  Priscus ;  ^  while  on  the  other  hand  ho 
appears  to  have  no  doubt  about  the  Yicus  Tuscus  having  been 
founded  at  this  time.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  Cailian  Hill 
should  have  been  left  uninhabited  till  the  time  of  Tarquinius 
Priscus,  and  we  have  already  shown  that  it  was  most  likely  colo- 
nized in  the  time  of  Eomulus.  That  Tarquin,  however,  through 
the  connexion  of  his  wife  Tanaquil  with  Etruria — and  it  is  she 
who  plays  the  prominent  part  in  bringing  forwards  Servius  Tullius 
— may  have  been  assisted  in  his  wars  by  an  Etruscan  condoitiere 
with  his  band,  that  this  band  may  have  been  cantoned  about  the 
Vicus  Tuscus,  and  have  been  of  no  slight  service  in  aiding  Servius 
to  usurp  the  crown,  is  not  altogether  improbable.  Livy  says  that 
he  was  supported  by  a  strong  guard,  and  Dionysius  states  the  same 
tiling.^  But  this  seems  to  point  to  the  mercenary  band  of  a  con- 
dottiere  ;  relying  upon  which,  he  was  able  to  set  the  patricians  at 
defiance,  especially  as  he  was  also  supported  by  the  alfcctions  of 
the  plebeians,  now  a  numerous  and  powerful  body,  whom  he  had 
gained  by  bribery  and  by  paying  their  debts.*  He  was  the  first 
king  who  was  able  to  dispense  with  an  election  in  the  regular 

1  Suet.  Claud.  42. 

2  "  Mox  Cielium  appellitatum  (montem  Querquetulanuni)  a  Caile  Vibenna, 
qui  dux  gentis  Etruscie,  quum  auxilium  appellatum  ductavisset,  sedem  earn 
acceperat  a  Taicpiinius  Prisco,  scit  qiiis  alius  reyum  dcdit:  nam  scriptores  in 
CO  dissentiunt  ;  cetera  non  anibigua  sunt,  magnas  eas  copias  per  plana  etiani 
ac  foro  propin(pia  habitasse,  unde  Tiiscum  vicum  e  vocabulo  advenaruni  dicta." 
— Ann.  iv.  65. 

^  "Priesidio  firnio  munitus." — Liv.  i.  41  :  lax^P^'*'  X«*iP«  ""^P^  avrov  ^x^*'-  — 
Lib.  iv.  c.  5. 
*  "  Obaeratosque  pccunia  sua  liberavisset."— Cic.  De  "Rep.  21. 

T  2 


276 


HISTORY  OF  THE   KINGS   OF  EOME. 


GENEALOGY   OF   SERVIUS   TULLIUS. 


277 


form  ;  that  is,  tlirougli  aninterrex  who  proposed  him  to  the  people; 
Avhich  term,  being  still  condned  to  the  Comitia  Curiata,  included 
only  a  small  part  of  the  whole  population.  He,  however,  took  care 
to  have  his  usurpation  confirmed  some  time  afterwards  in  the 
regular  way  by  proposing  himself  to  the  people,  and  procuring  a 
lex  curiata  de  imperio.^ 

The  Emperor  Claudius  was  not  the  first  who  brought  forwards 
this  account  of  the  Etruscan  origin  of  Servius  Tullius.  Such  an 
origin  had  been  adverted  to  by  Trogus  Pompeius,  who  flourished 
in  the  reign  of  Augustus.  The  passage  occurs  in  a  speech  of 
IVIithridates,  which  Justin  has  inserted  literally,  as  it  stood  in 
Trogus,  and  runs  as  follows :  '^  Hanc  illos  (Romanos)  regibus 
omnibus  legem  odiorum  dixisse :  scilicet  quia  ipsi  tales  reges 
habuerint,  quorum  etiam  nominibus  erubescant,  aut  pastores  Abori- 
ginum,  aut  haruspices  Sabinorum,  aut  exsules  Corinthiorum,  aut 
servos  vernasque  Thuscorum,  aut,  quod  honoratissimum  nomen  fuit 
inter  ha^c,  Superbos."^  It  is  impossible  to  doubt,  from  the  con- 
nexion in  which  the  words  "  servos  vernasque  Thuscorum  "  stand 
to  the  sentence,  that  Servius  Tullius  is  here  meant ;  and  therefore 
the  tradition  must  not  only  have  been  known,  but  even  have 
gained  some  acceptance,  at  the  time  when  Livy  and  Dionysius 
wrote,  though  these  authors  have  neglected  to  notice  it. 

Professor  Xewman  remarks  :  "  Unless  we  are  to  discard,  as 
totally  false,  the  tradition  that  the  sons  of  Ancus  instigated  the 
murder  of  Tarquin,  we  ought  apparently  to  regard  it  as  meaning 
that  a  violent  faction  of  the  greater  clans  had  conspired  to  recover 
their  lost  supremacy  by  this  atrocious  means.     Hereditary  succes- 

*  Sucli  appears  to  be  Cicero's  meaning,  De  Rep.  ii.  21,  "Non  commisit  se 
patribus  : "  that  is,  he  did  not  permit  the  Senate  to  appoint  an  Interrex. 
This  agrees  with  the  account  of  Dionysius  (iv.  8,  seqq.),  the  details  of  which, 
however,  are  evidently  a  rhetorical  invention.  The  account  of  Livy  (i.  41) 
is  somewhat  different.  He  agrees  with  the  other  two  authorities  in  stating 
that  Servius  seized  the  crown  "injussu  populi," — that  is,  without  proposal 
of  him  by  an  Interrex  to  the  people,  and  therefore  without  their  choice  ;  but 
says  that  he  reigned  "  voluntate  patrum,"  which  seems  hardly  to  have  been 
the  case.  Yet  voluntas  is  very  far  from  audoritas,  and  may  mean  only 
acquiescence,  connivance.  They  ventured  not  to  take  any  stejjs  against  the 
usurpation,  but  they  did  not  give  it  their  sanction.  Livy  also  says  that 
Servius  obtained  a  vote  of  the  people  (i.  46),  but  at  a  later  period,  after 
waging  some  successful  wars,  and  reforming  the  constitution.  And  this  seems 
most  probable. 

2  Justin,  xxxviii.  6  ;  cf.  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  718. 


sion  had  not  once  been  acted  on  in  Pome ;  and  it  is  not  probable 
that  the  sons  of  Ancus,  if  prompted  by  personal  motives,  coidd 
have  hoped  to  profit  by  the  crime."  ^ 

There  seems  to  be  a  good  deal  of  truth  in  these  observations ; 
and,  if  we  regard  the  conspiracy  of  the  sons  of  Ancus  as  an  attemjit 
of  the  patricians  to  get  rid  of  the  Tarquinian  dynasty,  it  will  serve 
to  explain  many  circumstances  of  the  narrative.  It  shows  why 
Servius  could  not  commit  himself  to  the  Senate  or  I?atricians — 7ion 
commisit  se  patribus — and  allow  them  to  appoint  an  Interrex  for 
electing  a  king ;  why  he  surrounded  himself  with  a  guard,  and 
courted  the  plebeians ;  why  Tanaquil,  thougli  she  had  sons,  or 
grandsons,  of  her  own  growing  up,  wished  to  make  him  king ; 
because  these  youths  were  not  old  enough  to  assert  their  preten- 
sions, and  Servius  might  keep  the  throne  for  them. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  all  these  things  might  have  been  equally 
done  by  Servius  had  he  been  no  Etruscan,  but  only  a  Latin,  an 
obliged  and  humble  dependent  of  Tarquin  and  Tanaquil ;  though, 
in  that  case,  we  do  not  so  well  see  whence  his  guard — his  prcesi- 
diicm  firmumy  as  Livy  calls  it — can  liave  come.  Eor  there  is 
nothing  to  show  that  he  had  a  guard  as  pra^fectus  nrhi^  or  warden 
of  the  city.  Schwegler's  objections  to  his  being  an  Etruscan,  drawn 
from  his  reforms,^  are  of  no  weight,  because  we  do  not  know  much 
about  the  Etruscan  constitution ;  and  because,  whatever  it  may 
have  been,  a  king  of  Pome  must  have  dealt  with  the  Poman  people 
and  constitution  according  to  the  materials  which  he  found,  and 
not  have  gone  to  Etruria  for  a  model.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
argument  drawn  from  his  conciliating  the  Latins  j  which  is  only 
what  any  politic  prince  would  have  done,  and  is  not  of  the  least 
force  in  proving  him  a  Latin  by  birth.  Xor  can  any  argument  be 
derived  from  the  name  of  Servius  Tullius,  which  may  have  been 
merely  an  adopted  one,  just  as  Tanaquil  called  herself  Gaia  Cfficilia. 
But  the  whole  subject  is  involved  in  obscurity.  All  that  we  can 
see  plainly  is  that  there  was  an  attempt  to  overthrow  the  Tarquinian 
dynasty ;  that  it  was  favoured  by  the  patricians ;  that  Servius 
Tullius  frustrated  it,  partly  by  a  display  of  force,  partly  through 
the  favour  of  the  plebeians,  and  succeeded  in  seizing  the  throne. 
But  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  is  hardly  justified  in  saying  that  he  "  acquires 
the  royal  office  as  son-in-law  of  the  late  king,  and  by  the  assistance 

1  Kegal  Rome,  p.  138.     Professor  Newman,  however,  takes  Servius  to  have 


been  a  Latin. 


2  13.  i.  S.  718. 


278 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   KOME, 


and  favour  of  Tanaquil  Ins  queen."  ^  His  relationship  to  the  late 
king  would  have  given  him  no  title  to  the  crown,  nor  would  the 
favour  of  Tanaquil,  though  she  undoubtedly  aided  him  in  seizing  it 
by  her  encouragement,  and  stratagem. 


SECTION  IX. 

FIRST   ACTS    OF   SERVIUS   TULLIUS— HIS   NEW   CONSTITUTION. 

Servius  proceeded  to  fortify  his  newly-acquired  power  no 
less  by  his  private  than  by  his  public  policy.  And,  lest  he 
should  experience  the  same  fate  at  the  hands  of  Tarquin's 
children  as  Tarquin  had  from  those  of  Ancus,  he  betrothed 
two  of  his  daughters  to  the  princes  Lucius  and  Aruns 
Tarquin.  But  human  counsels  could  not  prevail  over  the 
laws  of  fate,  nor  prevent  the  jealousy  and  envy  which 
accompany  that  high  station  from  filling  even  his  own 
family  with  disloyalty  and  hatred. 

A    war    undertaken    against    the   Yeientines    and    other 

Etruscans — for  the  truce  w^ith  Yeii  had  now  expireed — served 

very  opportunely  to   maintain  tranquillity  at  home.      The 

valour  and  fortune  of  Tullius  shone  forth  conspicuously  in 

that  w^ar.     By  the  defeat  of  a  vast  army  of  the  enemy  he 

assured  his  throne,   and  under  the  prestige  of  this  victory 

returned  to  Eome,  no  longer  doubtful  of  the  issue,  wdiether  it 

might  be  necessary  for  him  either  to  test  the  disposition  of 

the  patricians  tow^ards  him,  or  that  of  the  ^^/c&s.     For  he  now 

undertook   by   far   the   greatest   of  any  work   that   can   be 

accomplished  in  time  of  peace  ;  in  order  that,  as  Xuma  had 

been  the  author  of  religious  law,  so  he  himself   might  go 

down  to  posterity  as  the  founder  of  the  various  orders  of  the 

state,  as  they  are  marked  out  by  the  different  degrees  of  rank 

and  fortune.     For  it  was  now  that  he  instituted  the  census, 

an  institution  which  was  to  prove  the  greatest  benefit  in  so 

vast  an  empire.     By  this  the  various  offices  of  w^ar  and  peace 

were  not  to  be  discharged  indiscriminately,  and  by  the  head, 

but  according  to  the  means  and  fortuJie  of  those  who  imder- 

^  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  \).  483. 


FIRST   ACTS    OF   SERVIUS   TULLIUS, 


279 


took  them.  Hence  the  distribution  of  the  people  into  classes 
and  centuries,  and  that  order  of  things  arising  from  the 
census,  adapted  to  both  peace  and  war. 


Remarks. — We  are  now  arrived  at  the  most  important  epoch  of 
the  reign  of  Servius,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  regal  period — the  Ser- 
vian Eeform.  But  before  we  enter  upon  this,  which  will  demand  a 
review  of  the  whole  Boman  constitution,  we  will  say  a  few  words 
on  the  transactions  which  preceded  it. 

At  p.  723  Schvvegler  remarks :  "  The  ccmnnon  tradition  that 
Servius  Tullius  obtained  the  throne  more  particvdarly  by  being  the 
son-in-law  of  the  king,  and  by  being  advised  and  supported  by 
Tanaquil,  is  clogged  with  difliculties  in  another  respect.  As  the 
sons  of  Tarquin,  Lucius  and  Aruns,  are  married  to  daughters  of 
Servius  Tullius,  they  would,  if  Servius  had  been  wedded  to  a 
daughter  of  Tarquin,  have  taken  to  wife  their  nieces,  the  daughters 
of  their  sister  ;  although,  according  to  the  Boman  view,  this  was 
incest.  Even  in  the  imperial  times,  when  the  Emperor  Claudius 
gave  the  first  example  of  such  a  marriage,  it  excited  great  and 
universal  disapprobation.  We  must,  therefore,  relinquish  either  the 
one  account  or  the  other ;  and  doubtless  the  first,  of  Servius  having 
been  the  son-in-law  of  Tarquin  :  since  the  marriage  of  the  younger 
Tarquins  with  the  daughters  of  Servius  has  incomparably  a  more 
historical  character." 

We  must  confess  that  we  cannot  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion. 
There  were  not  two  conflicting  accounts  respecting  Servius  having 
been  the  son-in-law  of  Tarquin,  though  Cicero,  it  is  true,  does  not 
mention  that  circumstance.  But  there  were  two  conflicting  accounts 
whether  the  younger  Tarquins  were  the  sons  or  grandsons  of 
Priscus ;  and  probability  would  show  them  to  have  been  his  grand- 
sons. In  this  case  they  would  have  married  their  cousins;  to 
which  there  would  have  been  no  objection,  and  especially  in  a  royal 
family.  In  fact,  these  marriages  may  be  regarded  as  a  further 
proof  that  the  younger  Tarquins  were  the  grandsons  of  Priscus. 

The  Etruscan  war  of  Servius  Tullius,  which  Livy  and  Cicero 
mention  only  brielly,i  ^^^s  probably  of  longer  duration  than 
one  campaign.  Tlie  Fasti  Triumphales  appear  to  mention  three 
triumphs.     But  that  it  lasted  tAventy  years,  as  Dionysius  states,^ 


1  Liv.  i.  42 ;  Cic.  De  Ecp.  ii.  21. 


2  Lib.  iv.  c.  27,  scjq. 


280 


IIISTOKY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


'M 


and  that  the  result  of  it  was  nothing  less  than  the  confirmation  of 
the  Koman  empire  over  all  Etruria,  it  is  impossible  to  believe. 

Before  'sve  describe  the  political  reforms  introduced  hy  Servius 
Tullius,  we  will  take  a  view  of  the  Itoman  constitution  as  it  existed 
before  those  reforms,  and  then  proceed  to  consider  uhe  alterations 
made  by  Servius. 

THE   ROMx\N    CONSTITUTION    UNDER   THE    KINGS. 

The  Itoman  constitution  as  it  existed  under  the  kings  is  a  most 
intricate  subject.  Volumes  have  been  written  upon  it,  yet  scholars 
are  not  yet  agreed  even  upon  the  nature  of  some  of  the  most  pro- 
minent institutions ;  as,  for  instance,  the  early  i^opulus  and  iilehs^ 
the  Comitia  Curiata,  the  Auctoritas  Patrum,  &;c.  It  would,  per- 
haps, be  impossible  to  give  an  account  of  the  early  constitution 
that  should  not  be  liable  to  some  objections.  We  have  attempted 
in  the  following  sketch  only  to  give  what  seemed  to  us  the  most 
2>robable  descri])tion  of  it  j  that  is,  which  appeared  liable  to  the 
fewest  objections,  and  therefore  the  most  consistent.  Whether  this 
object  has  been  attained  the  reader  must  judge  ;  all  that  it  becomes 
us  to  say  about  it  is,  that  it  is  the  result  of  a  careful  inquiry, 
instituted  without  any  previous  theories  or  prejudices,  and  con- 
ducted to  the  best  of  our  judgment  and  knowledge. 

We  will  first  consider  the  composition  of  the  Eoman  peoj^le. 

The  population  of  Eomulus,  the  original  inhabitants  of  the 
Palatine  city,  consisted  only  of  his  own  immediate  followers,  called 
Ramnes ;  to  whom  were  afterwards  added  the  Luceres,  composed, 
as  some  think,  of  the  fugitives  who  had  taken  refuge  in  the 
Asylum,  augmented  probably  afterwards  by  some  Etruscans  who 
had  aided  him  in  his  wars  against  the  Sabines.  At  a  later  period 
a  still  greater  increase  took  place  by  the  addition  of  the  Sabines 
themselves ;  who,  as  we  have  already  related,  became  incorporated 
with  the  earlier  settlers,  and  ultiQiately  formed  with  them  the 
Roman  nation.  Other  additions  subsequently  took  place  by  the 
incorporation  of  conquered  peoples  ;  but  it  was  the  three  races 
before  mentioned,  the  Ramnes,  the  Luceres,  and  the  Titles,  or 
Sabines,  that  are  regarded  as  the  original  and  genuine  stem-tribes 
of  the  Romans. 

From  these  three  races  naturally  arose  a  division  of  the  whole 
nation  into  three  tribes,  bearing  their  respective  names  j  whence  the 
term  trihus  to  denote  a  division  of  the  people  for  political  purposes, 


I 


\  ^m. 


if 


COMPOSITION    OF   THE   EOIIAN   PEOPLE.  281 

aftevwar.Is  applied  to  any  such  division,,  without  respect  of  number 
11ns  term  would  not,   of  course,  have  come  into  use  before  the 
habme  union;  but  it  seems  natural  to  suppose  that,  before  this 
period,  the  Lan.ncs  and  Luceres  were  subject  to  certain  political 
divisions;  and  it  appears  certain  that  the  liamnes,  at  least,  must 
ha^^  been  previously  divided  into  gentes  and  curim.     For  what  cLe 
could  have  been  the  curke  vetcres,  which  were  situated  on  the  Pala- 
tine Hill,  but  the  halls  where  the  liamnian  curiales  met  ?     It  is 
impossible  that  the  Komulcan  state  could  have  gone  on  without 
some  such  organization;  but,  for  a  general  view  of  the  constitution 
It  suffices  to  regard  the  state  after  the  Sabine  union. 

The  three  tribes  then  formed  were,  as  we  learn  from  Varro  con 
neeted  with  a  similar  division  of  the  r,,er  Homauus,  or  Ij'oman 
territory.!  At  the  hca,l  of  each  tribe  was  a  trihunu.s  who  may  bo 
considered  as  their  commander  in  war ;  '^  for  the  whole  Romulean 
constitution  was  doubtless  contrived,  in  the  first  instance  for 
warlike  purposes-the  forming  of  a  militia ;  but,  as  the  'men 
capable  of  bearing  arms  alone  enjoyed  civil  rights,  the  arran-rement 
was  also  political.  The  members  of  the  same  tribe  were"  called 
tnhiilen,  and  those  of  the  same  curia,  curiales.^ 

The  curia  was  a  subdivision  of  each  tribe  into  ten  parts  ■  and 
thus  the  whole  popnlm-thv^t  is,  the  whole  army,  and  conse- 
quently the  whole  population  enjoying  the  jm  miffrmjli,  or  vote 
—was  contained  in  thirty  curiio.  At  the  head  of  each  curia  was 
a  patrician  priest,  called  mrio,  who  performed  the  sacred  rites 
proper  to  it,  in  its  house  of  assembly,  or  hall,  called  curia* 
In  each  of  these  halls  was  a  statue  of  Juno  Curitis,  with  a  mema 
or  altar.5  There  were  also  other  curial  priests,  called  Jlamhu-s  « 
On  feast-days,  the  curiales  appear  to  have  dined  together  in  these 

•  "  Agor  Romanus  ,,rinunn  divisus  in  partcis  tris,  a  quo  tiibus  appellata 
Tiiticusimn,  Eainmum,  Luccrum."— Ling.  Lat.  v.  55.  ii       '' 

■=  " Tribuui  militum  quoa  terni  tiilms  tiibubus Eamnium,  Lucenmi  Titium 
olim  ad  cxercitum  mittebaiitur."— Ibid.  81. 

3  "Curiales  ejusdcmcm-iffi,  uttiibulcset  nmiiicipes."—r.'iul   Diac    p    49 
■*  "  Cuiiones  dicti  a  curiis,  qui  fiunt  ut  in  his  sacra  faciant."-Van    L  L 

V.  83.     "  CMnoiuum  ,ts  dicebatur,  quod  dubatur  cmioni  ob  sacerdotium  curii 

oiiiitus."— raul.  Diac.  p.  49  (Miill.). 
=  "Curiales  mcus.^,  in  quibus  inunolabatur  Junoni,    qua;  cuvis  appcUata 

est.  -idem,  i>.  64.    Dionysius  also  mentions  these  tables,  T.a«Ya,,  as  placed 

tliere  by  Tatu.s  (ii.  50),  but  distinguisl.es  then,  from  the  alt.a.s  ;  cf!  lb   60 
Curiales  ilanuucs  curiarum  sacerdotes."— Paul.  Diac.  loc.  cit. 


2S2 


HISTOPvY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


KATUKE   OF  THE   ROMAN   GENTES. 


halls. "^  That  the  curire  were  suhdivided  into  decurioc  rests  only 
on  the  authority  of  Dionysius.  Of  the  political  functions  of  the 
members  of  the  curice  we  shall  speak  presently. 

Besides  these  curiae,  or  halls,  there  was  also  the  Curia  Calahra, 
which  seems  to  have  been  a  sort  of  House  of  Convocation,  or  placo 
of  assembly  for  the  priests ;  where  they  proclaimed  on  what  day  of 
the  month  the  Xones  would  happen.^ 

The  third  and  last  subdivision  of  the  people  was  into  gentes,  for 
which  we  can  find  no  better  English  name  than  clam. 

The  members  of  a  gens  were  not  necessarily  blood-relations  :  the 
institution  was  political,  like  the  curiae,  though  we  cannot  so  easily 
point  out  for  what  purpose,  but  also  most  probably  with  a  view  to 
military  organization.  The  principal  passage  respecting  the  gentes 
is  the  following  one  of  Cicero  :  3— "  Gentiles  sunt  qui  inter  se  eodem 
nomine  sunt.  Xon  est  satis.  Qui  ab  ingenuis  oriundi  sunt.  ^  Xe 
id  quidem  satis  est.  Quorum  majorum  nemo  sorvitutem  servivit. 
Abest  etiam  nunc.     Qui  capite  non  sunt  deminuti.     Hoc  fortasso 

satis  est." 

This  being  a  formal,  logical  delmition,  of  course  pretends  to  the 
greatest  accuracy.  We  see,  then,  that  the  general  mark  of  recogni- 
tion was  the  same  7iame,  and  that  blood-relationship  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  matter,  except  in  so  far  that  blood  relations  bear  the 
same  name.  Cicero  begins  from  the  most  general  term.  The  same 
name  includes  all  belonging  to  the  gem,  or  clan,  but  the  same 
blood  would  not.  Hence  the  members  of  a  gens  were  not  necessarily 
any  more  related  by  blood  than  the  members  of  a  curia.  The  quali- 
fications for  a  gens  were  not  blood,  but  to  have  been  born  free 
(ingeniim),  and  not  to  have  forfeited  civil  rights  (non  capite  demi- 

nidus). 

Paul  the  Deacon  gives  another  definition  much  to  the  same 
purpose  ;  *'  Gentilis  dicitur  ex  eodem  genere  ortus,  et  is  qui  simili 
nomine  appellatur,  ut  ait  Cincius :  gentiles  mihi  sunt,  qui  meo 
nomine  appellantur."  "^  .  ^ 

This  definition  is  not  so  logical  and  accurate  as  Cicero's ;  but  it 
shows  still  more  clearly  that  blood-relationship  was  not  necessary, 
because  it  includes  both  blood-relations  {eodem  genere  ort)  and  those 

^  Dionys.  loc.  cit. 

2  "  Calabra  curia  diccbatur,  ubi  tantum  ratio  fcacroram  gcrebatur."— Paul. 
Diac.  p.  49  ;  cf.  Varr.  L.  L.  v.  13,  vi.  27.  ^  Top.  6. 

*  Paul.  Diac.  p.  94  (Miill.) 


283 


%. 


who  arc  only  called  by  the  same  name  {qui  simili  nomine  aiypel- 
lantar). 

The  truth  of  these  definitions,  liowever,  is  contested  by  Becker,^ 
who  opposes  to  it  the  following  passage  from  Yarro  ;  -— "  Ut  in 
hominibus  qua?dam  sunt  agnationes  ac  gentilitates,  sic  in  verbis  :  ut 
enim  ab  yEmilio  homines  orti  yEmilii,  ac  gentiles  j  sic  ab  /Emilii 
nomine  declinatae  voces  in  gentilitate  nominali." 

"This  passage,"  says  Becker,  "which  Niebuhr  gets  rid  of  so 
easily,^  shows,  however,  this  much  :  that  Varro  figured  to  himself 
an  ^milius  as  stem-father  of  the  whole  gem  ^Emilia ;  and  not  that 
it  could  have  been  constituted  of  quite  different  persons,  not  related 
by  blood,  but  bearing  a  common  political  name.  That  might  have 
been  possible  at  Athens,  but  not  at  liome." 

The  objection  is  quite  futile.  The  passage  cannot  be  tortured 
into  meaning  "that  Yarro  figured  to  himself  an  yEmilius  as  stem- 
father  of  the  whole  gens  Emilia."  Of  course  those  descended  from 
iEmilius  would  bear  his  name,  and  be  gentiles ;  but  the  question 
is,  would  these  include  all  the  /Emilii  ?  Were  there  not  other 
yEmilii,  who  did  not  trace  their  origin  to  a  man  named  yEmilius  ? 
Eor  Yarro's  purpose,  it  was  not  material  whether  there  were  such 
or  not ;  it  sufficed  for  his  illustration  to  compare  the  cases  of  a 
noun  to  the  family  of  a  man.  Such  a  passage,  therefore,  cannot 
weigh  for  a  moment  against  the  two  before  (quoted,  the  purpose  of 
which  is  to  give  an  accurate  definition  of  the  word  gentilis. 

Becker  then  proceeds  to  argue,  after  Guttling,  as  follows :— It  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  the  Latins  and  Sabines  gave  up  their  family 
names  when  they  were  admitted  into  the  Eoman  patriciate.  Thus 
we  find  the  Tullii,  Servilii,  Quinctii,  ^c,  admitted  as  patricians, 
and  consequently  into  the  curix-,  without  changing  their  names| 
though,  being  admitted  into  other  gentes,  they  should  have  given 
them  up. 

Here  we  may  ask.  Why  was  it  necessary  that  they  should  bo 
admitted  into  other  gentes  ?  It  was  necessary,  of  course,  to  have  a 
gens,  in  order  to  belong  to  a  curia ;  but  these  Latins  might  have 
been  made  into  Boman  gentes,  and  yet  have  been  suffered  to  retain 
their  oiiginal  names. 

1  EiJm.  Altertb.  15.  ii.  Abth.  i.  S.  37  ;  cf.  Giittliug,  Staatsv.  S.  62. 
3  Ling.  Lnt.  viii.  4. 

3  "Abcr  so  gk'ichiii.s.s\vcisc  wie  or  liier  reJ(>t,  Aviirdc  walulicb  cr  selbst 
OS  sicb  verbeteii  liabeii  ilim  cine  solclie  Erwahimiig  biichstabHcb  als  eiue  liis- 
torische  lieliauptuiig  auszulcgen."— Niobubr,  Kom.  Ge.sch.  i.  329. 


I'tV 


28-t 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


The  argument  seems  to  be,  that  to  be  admitted  into  a  curia  they 
must  first  have  been  admitted  into  a  gens,  as  each  curia  consisted 
of  only  ten  gentes.  But  this  rests  ujion  nothing  at  all,  except  an 
inference  of  Niebuhr's,  from  a  passage  in  Dionysius/  where  it  is 
said  that  the  curi«  were  divided  into  decurue,  or  decads.  Dionysius 
is  the  only  author  who  says  this ;  but,  though  he  is  not  a  very  good 
authority  on  the  Eoman  constitution,  still  it  is  not  improbable  that 
as  each  tribe  w^as  divided  into  ten  curiae,  so  each  curia  may  have 
been  divided  into  ten  decuria?.  [N'iebuhr  conjectured  that  these 
decuria3  were  the  same  as  the  gentes,  and  that  there  was  thus  in 
each  tribe  ten  curiae,  and  a  hundred  gentes.  But  there  is  no  method 
of  connecting  decuria  with  gens.  Dionysius  must  have  known  the 
difference,  if  there  had  been  any ;  and  if  there  was  none,  why  two 
names  1  It  is  impossible  to  say  how  many  gentes  there  were  in  a 
curia,  or  whether  there  was  the  same  number  in  each.  The  number 
may  have  varied  according  to  the  numerosity  of  the  gentes  which 
composed  it ;  for  we  must  assume  that  some  gentes  were  more 
powerful  and  numerous  than  others.  And  though  these  divisions 
by  tens  and  hundreds  may  have  been  those  originally  established, 
yet  we  may  presume  that  they  were  not  unalterable,  if  political 
necessity  demanded  a  change. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  the  Ramnes,  for  instance,  were  first 
divided  into  a  hundred  gentes.  It  seems  to  have  been  necessary  to 
a  gens  that  a  patrician  family  should  have  been  at  its  head ;  and 
when  Romulus  appointed  his  first  Senate  of  a  hundred  members,  he 
made,  by  that  act,  so  many  patrician  families. 

"  That  the  gentes^''  says  Becker,^  "  were  not  a  mere  political  insti- 
tution appears  to  follow  from  their  having  sacra  ^^Wva^a.  Had  it 
been  a  political  division  like  the  curiae,  the  sacra,  like  those  of  the 
curiae,  would  have  been  public." 

AVe  believe  that  in  its  origin  the  institution  was  political,  and 
that,  agreeably  to  the  Greek  descent  of  Romulus,  it  was  taken  from 
a  Greek  custom.  On  this  subject  Schwegler  says  :^  "This  view 
(that  the  institution  was  political)  is  recommended  by  the  analogy 
of  the  old  Attic  constitution.  In  this,  each  of  the  twelve  phratriae 
was  divided  into  thirty  gentes  {yevq),  so  that  the  whole  number  of 
them  amounted  to  three  hundred  and  sixty.  These  fixed  numbers 
show  that  we  cannot  here  think  of  natural  relationship,  or  kindred ; 
and  further,  it  is  expressly  handed  down  that  the  bond  of  union  of 
1  Lib.  ii.  c.  7.  2  s.  39^  3  g^  j^  §_  ^13^ 


-•v.  yj 


NATURE  OF  THE  ROMAN  GENTES.  285 

these  gentes  was  not  Llood  relationship,  or  a  common  descent,  hut 
a  coinmunion  of  holy  rites.  Nevertlielcss  these  communities  are 
callc,!  y,.,  the  members  of  them  ytvnira^,  and  even  «a„ya'\a.T«, 
as  it  they  had  been  family  relations."! 

But  though  the  institution  was  most  probably  political,  yet  the 
connexion  between  the  members  of  a  ffens  was  much  more  intimate, 
and  as  it  were  sacred,  than  that  between  the  members  of  a  curia 
llieso,  with  regard  to  one  another,  were  merely  cnriales ;  while  the 
members  of  a  gem  were  not  only  gnMUs,  but  also  bore  the  same 
proper  name,  as  if  they  had  behmged  to  one  family. 

It  is  hanlly  possible  that  all  the  families  belonging  to  a  aens 
were  patrician,  though  this  has  been  assumed.  Indeed  there  are 
passages  which  contradict  such  an  assumption.  Livy,  describing, 
the  gens  Fabia  going  forth  to  the  Veientino  war,  says :  « Sex  ot 
trecenti  milites,  omne,  patHHi,  omnes  unins  ffentis,  quorum  neminem 
ducem  sperneret  egregius  .juibuslibot  temporibus  senatus,  ibant 
umus  Samdw  viribus  Veionti  populo  pestem  minitantes  "  2 

I'f'Aw  1^  "■'  ''"'^  described  as  not  only  of  oney.n.,  it  is  also 
added  that  they  were  all  patricians,  all  of  one  family.  Now  unless 
a  </e««  might  have  contained  different  families,  not  related  by  blood 
and  plebeian  families  as  well  as  patrician,  these  additions  would 
have  been  unnecessary.  It  would  have  sufficed  to  say  that  the 
Fabian  gem  went  forth  to  the  number  of  three  hundred  and 
sixty,  and  every  Eoman  would  have  understood  that  they  were  all 
patricians,  all  of  one  family. 

So  also  the  well  known  decree  of  the  gens  Manila,  after  the 
condemnation  of  M.  Manlius  Capitolinus,  "  Decreto  gentis  Manlia) 
neminem  pairicium  M.  Manlium  vocari  licet."  »  There  were  there- 
fore plebeian  families  of  the  same  gens. 

Now,  in  the  original  constitution  of  Eomulus,  what  were  these 
plebeians  that  made  part  of  a  gens  ?  Might  they  not  have  been 
the  clients  1 

The  client  appears  to  have  borne  the  name  of  his  patron,  and 
theretore,  if  he  was  an  imjenmt.,,  he  was  the  gentUis  of  his  iwtron 
Becker   allows  that  the  client  belonged  to   the  gens,    but   adds, 

J  «al  oi  ^^r(xo.T.s  to!;  yi.ov,  y^.^Hra,  .a\  6/.„ydKaKr.,,  yiy.,  ^'k,  oi,  ^fo^i- 
«WT«,  «  8,  T,5   „vv6io„  oKtc  ■^po^o.yof^vi^,,voi.-V»\\.  viii.  111.       T.vv-nrai- 

ofiyiav,  a(p  •'v  opy(uv(:5  <ivot^i.<!6ri(!av.  —  M^xa.  M. 
'^"'•"•^''-  '  Cic.  Phil.  i.  13  i  cf.  Liv.  vi.  20. 


28G 


HlSTOKY    OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROMfi. 


NATURE   OF  THE   POPULUS. 


prohaUy  ^vithout  being  a  gaiUlls;  but  how,  bearing  tlie  name  of 
the  gens,  and  belonging  to  the  <jens,  he  was  not  a  gentiUs,  Becker 
does  not  explain  ;  ^  nor  does  he  adduce  any  authorities  in  support 
of  his  opinion.  But  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  make  this  assertion ; 
because,  as  the  curiae  were  composed  of  gentes,  the  client,  as  a 
gentilis,  would  have  been  a  member  of  them,  and  have  had  the 
jus  suffmgii :  wliereas,  after  :N"iebuhr,  he  holds  the  theory  that  the 
Curiate  Comitia  were  composed  entirely  of  patricians.  We  have 
already  shown,  however,  and  shall  still  further  show,  that  there 
must  have  been  plebeian  families  in  the  gentes ;  and  if  these 
were  not  the  clients,  there  must  have  been  a  plebeian  population 
besides  the  clients.  But  Cicero's  expression,  that  Eomulus  had 
the  plehs  enrolled  in  the  clientship  of  chief  men,  or  the  patricians,'^ 
seems  to  indicate  that  he  meant  the  ivhole  of  the  plebs ;  otherwise 
he  would  have  pointed  out  some  distinction. 

But  this  brings  us  to  one  of  the  most  important  and  difficult 
questions  respecting  the  ancient  regal  constitution.  The  thirty 
curiie,  comprismg  about  three  thousand  persons,  formed  the 
whole  ^omo^VL  2M^ulus,  entitled  to  take  a  part  in  the  government  by 
giving  their  vote.  Did  this  populus  consist  entirely  of  patricians, 
or  of  patricians  and  plebeians  mixed  ] 

First,  if  it  consisted  entirely  of  patricians,  what  was  the  use  of 
two  names  ]     For  the  terms  ^>o^;di^iw  and  ^xf^ricit  must  have  been 

identical. 

Secondly,  we  have  endeavoured  to  show  that,  in  the  reign  of 
Romulus,  three  thousand  men  must  have  comprised  pretty  nearly 
the  whole  population  capable  of  bearing  arms.  But  the  title  of 
patricii  was  bestowed  by  way  of  distinction  3  and  if  it  was  common 
to  the  whole  population,  it  would  have  been  no  distinction  at  all. 
That  one-tenth  part  of  it  sliould  have  been  thus  distinguished  is 
surely  a  very  fair  proportion.  But  if  the  part  thus  distinguished 
was  three  thousand  in  number,  then  there  must  have  been  ten 
times  as  many  men  not  so  distinguished,  or  thirty  thousand ;  and 
the  whole   population,  including  women,   children,   persons   not 

1  "  Wie  der  Client  den  Gentilnamen  des  Patrons  f lihrt,  so  war  er  mit  seincn 
Nachkommen  an  dessen  FamiUe  und  mithin  an  die  gens  gebunden."— Rom. 
Alterth.  ii.  130.  "  Denn  der  Gens  gehorte  der  Client  an,  ^vahrscheinlich 
ohne  seibst  Gentile  zu  sein."— Ibid.  131.  Dionysius  says  that  the  clients  were 
to  defray  any  extraordinary  expenses  of  their  patrons,  us  rovs  yiv^i  irpoajr 

Kovras. — ii.  10. 
•''  "  Habuit  plebem  in  clientelas  principum  descriptam." — De  Rep.  ii.  9. 


287 


*'• 


-"  V- 


enfranchised,  &c.,  must  have  amounted,  at  tlie  very  lowest  estimate 

to  100,000  m  the  reign  of  Komulus  ;  a  number  wholly  incredible  ' 

Tliese  are  arguments  only  from  probability,  but  passages  of  the 

ancient  writers  show  that  the  curiaj  contained  a  large  proportion 

ot  plebeians.     We  will  adduce  a  few  of  these. 

_    After  the  death  of  Eomulus,  the   plebeians   are   described   as 

indignant  at  the  long  duration  of   the  interregnum:    -'Fremero 

deinde  pleb,,  luultiplicatam  servituteni,  centum  pro  uno  dominos 

tactos:iiec   ultra    nisi   regem,    ct  ab   Ipsis  creatum,    videbantur 

passuri.         Here   the   plebeians   plainly   appear   as   a   large  and 

powerful  body  in  the  state,   having  the  power  to  elect   a   kin^- 

(   creare  regem")  in  their  assembly;  for  creare  is  the  proper  technical 

phrase  for  such  a  mode  of  election.     Livy  then  proceeds  :   "  ()uum 

sensissont  ea  moveri  Fatres,  oilcrendum  ultro  rati,  quod  amissuri 

erant,  ita  gratiam  mcunt,  summa  potcstate  jmpulo  permissa,  ut  non 

plus  darent  juris,  quam  retinerent.     Decreverunt  enini,  ut,  quum 

populus   regem   jussisset,   id  sic   ratum  esset,  si  Patros  auctores 

iierent. 

The  ^  word  Fatres  is  now  and  then  rather  ambiguous.  Its 
primary  meaning  is,  the  Senate,  though  sometimes  it  denotes  the 
whole  patrician  body ;  but,  by  attention  to  the  context,  we  shall  if 
not  in  all  cases,  certainly  in  most,  be  able  to  distinguish  the  sense 
m  which  it  is  used.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  in  the  present 
instance  it  means  the  Senate.  First  because  it  was  the  hundred 
senators  of  liomulus  who  had  seized  the  interregnum;  secondly 
they  made  a  decree  on  the  subject  in  dispute  (- decreverunt  enim")  • 
thirdly,  at  the  termination  of  the  affair,  the  plebeians  leave  it  to 
the  Senate  to  elect  a  king  :  -  Adeo  id  -mixmi  pi ebi  fuit,  ut,  ne  victi 
beneficio  viderentur,  id  modo  sciscerent  juberentque,  ut  seiiatm 
decerneret,  qui  lioma}  regnaret." 

The  Interrex  communicates  the  determination  of  the  Senate  to 
leave  the  election  in  the  liands  of  the  people  in  a  concio  which  ho 
has  called,  the  members  of  which  he  addresses  as  Quirites.  But  it 
IS  m  no  such  irregular  assembly  that  the  election  is  actually  made 
but  m  the  regular  Comitia  Curiata.  This  we  learn  from  Cicero' 
m  a  passage  to  which  we  have  already  adverted  :  *'  IJerrem  alieni- 
genam,  patrihus  auctorihus,  sibi  ipse  populm  ascivit  .  .°  .  Qui  ut 
hue  venit,  quamquam  populus  curiatis  eum  comitlis  regem  esse 
jusserat,  tamen  ipse  de  suo  imperio  curiatam  legem  tulit.''^" 


^  Liv.  i.  17. 


Be  Rep.  ii.  13. 


288 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


NATURE   OF  THE   RATRU.M   AUCTORITAS. 


289 


In  like  manner  on  tlie  deatli  of  :N"uma  Livy  says  :  ''  Numa3 
niorte  ad  interregnum  res  rediit.  Inde  Tiillum  Hostilium .  .  .  rer/em 
2x>pulus  jussit.  Patres  auctores  factir^  It  seems  to  ns  that  the 
intellect  must  be  peculiarly  constituted  which  could  imagine  this 
po2mlus  and  these  Fatres  to  be  the  same  persons.  Cicero  relates 
the  same  event  as  follows  :—"  Mortuo  rege  Pompilio,  Tullum 
Hostilium  populus  regem,  interrege  rogante,  comitiis  curiatis 
creavit ;  isque  de  imperio  suo,  exemplo  Pompilii,  populum  consuluit 
curiatim."  -  Here  he  omits  the  Patres  Auctores  as  Livy  does  the 
Lex  Curiata ;  but  this  seems  to  be  merely  accidental,  for  we  have 
seen  by  a  preceding  passage  just  quoted  that  Cicero  knew  it  to  be 

necessary. 

Before  proceeding  any  further  we  will  make  one  or  two  remarks 
on   the   passages   relating   to   the   interregnum   on  the   death  of 

Pomulus. 

First,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that,  if  the  2m'>ulm  was  identical 
with  the  patricians,  it  would  have  made  so  determined  a  resistance 
to  them  in  this  instance.  The  Patres  and  the  patricii  are  identical 
as  a  party,  and  always  act  together ;  and  if  the  Patres  deemed  it  to 
their  interest  to  keep  on  the  Interregnum,  we  may  be  sure  that  they 
would  not  have  been  opposed  by  the  patricii,— that  is,  by  their  own 
flimilies  and  connexions.  The  opposition  must  have  proceeded 
from  a  body  with  different  interests,  and  this  could  only  have  been 

the  pleljeians. 

Second,  it  is  maintained  by  those  who  hold  that  the  curire  were 
composed  only  of  patricians,  that  the  phrases  Fatrum  auctoritas 
and  Fatres  auctores  Jiunt  mean  the  assent  of  the  Comitia  Curiata  to 
any  measure,  and  not  that  of  the  Senate,  and  that  the  lex  curiata  de 
imperio  is  only  another  phrase  for  the  same  thing.  But  in  Livy's 
account,  in  which,  as  we  have  shown,  it  is  the  Senate  that  acts  and 
not  the  patrician  body,  it  is  said  that  they  resolved  not  to  give  the 
people  a  greater  share  of  right  than  they  retained  themselves ;  and 
therefore  they  decreed  that  the  election  of  a  king  made  by  the 
people  should  be  A^lid  only  if  they  authorized  it— si  Fatres  auctores 

fierent. 

Livy's  account  of  the  proceedings  during  the  interregnum  shows 
that  the  Patrum  Auctoritas  and  the  Lex  Curiata  could  not  have 
been  the  sauie  thing.  At  the  death  of  Romulus  there  was  no  Lex 
Curiata  in  existence.     Eomulus,  as  we  have  shown,  reigned  jure 

1  Lil).  i.  22.  ^  De  Rep.  ii.  17. 


•r'*- 

;§;■ 

^s** 


..V 


divino.  His  imperium  could  not  have  been  confirmed,  on  his 
accession,  by  the  curiiio,  because  the  curiie  were  not  yet  in  exist- 
ence. It  was  he  who  created  them ;  and  it  would  be  absurd  to 
think  that  lie  should  require  a  confirmation  of  Ir^s  power  from 
those  who  were  the  creatures  of  his  power.  It  was  JSTunia  Poni- 
pilius  who  introduced  the  Lex  Curiata ;  and  so  Cicero  tells  us  in  a 
passage  just  quoted  (De  Pep.  ii.  1 7),  respecting  the  election  of  Tullus, 
that  this  king  obtained  a  Lex  Curiata  not  "exemplo  Roniuli,"  but 
"  exemplo  Pompilii."  Indeed  it  was  necessary  that  the  elected  king, 
or  magistrate,  should  propose  the  Lex  Curiata  in  person;!  and 
before  the  election  of  Numa  it  could  not  even  be  told  that  he  was 
going  to  do  this.  When,  therefore,  Livy  alludes  to  the  Patres 
Auctores  during  the  previous  interregnum,  he  could  not  possibly 
be  alluding  to  the  Lex  Curiata. 

That  the  auctoritas  lay  with  the  Senate  and  not  with  the  Comitia 
Curiata,^  is  still  more  clearly  shown  by  the  passage  in  Cicero 
quoted  in  p.  287,2  because  the  three  acts  are  there  separated  from 
one  another :  the  election  by  the  people  in  the  Comitia  Curiata  ; 
the  approval  of  the  election  by  the  authority  of  the  Senate ;  thJ 
confirmation  of  their  own  act  by  the  curia3  through  a  lex  curiata  de 
imperio.  Comparing  this  passage  with  Livy,  it  is  impossible  to 
dispute  that  "Patribus  auctoribus  "  refers  to  the  Senate;  and,  com- 
paring the  clauses  of  the  passage  wdth  one  another,  it  is  equally 
plain  that  the  Auctoritas  Patrum  and  the  Lex  Curiata  are  different 
things  done  by  different  pei'sons  at  different  times.  Yet,  in  spite  of 
this  clear  evidence  of  their  difference,  Becker  and  others  maintain 
that  they  are  the  same  thing,  by  some  singular  arguments  which 
we  shall  examine  further  on.  First  of  all  we  will  adduce  one  or 
two  more  passages  to  show  that  the  plehs  really  had  a  voice  in  the 
government  in  the  early  regal  constitution. 

Livy,  in  his  account  of  Tarquin's  canvassing  for  the  crown,  says 
that,  as  the  sons  of  Ancus  were  nearly  arrived  at  puberty,  *'eo 
magis  Tarquinius  instare,  ut  quam  primum  comitia  regi  creando 
fierent.  Quibus  indictis,  sub  tenipus  pueros  venatum  ablegavit ; 
isque  primus  et  petisse  ambitiose  regnum,  et  orationem  dicitur 
habuisse  ad  conciliandos  plehis  animos  compositam."^  Hence  we 
learn  that  the  i^lehs  took  part  in  the  "  Comitia  regi  creando,"  which 
could  then  have  been  only  the  Comitia  Curiata ;  and  hence  we  may 
infer  that,  as  Tarquin  took  such  pains  to  conciliate  the  plehs,  they 
1  See  Rubino,  p.  376,  scq.  2  p^.  ^^^   jj   ^^  3  ^.^    .  ^^^ 

U 


ifJifc.:! 


-%^ 


290 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


TATRUM  AUCTORITAS  AND  LEX   CURIATA. 


291 


must  have  formed  the  majority  of  that  assembly.  Yet  these 
Comitia,  though  thus  in  a  great  part  plebeian,  formed  the  Roman 
populus;  for  Livy  immediately  afterwards  adds  :  *'  Hsec  eum  baud 
falsa  memorantem  ingenti  consensu  populus  llomanus  regnare  jussit." 
In  like  manner  Cicero  says :  *'  Cunctis  2yopidi  suffragiis  rex  est 
creatus  L.  Tarquinius ; "  ^  adding  :  ''  isque  de  suo  imperio  legem 
tulit  j "  that  is,  he  obtained  a  confirmatory  Lex  Curiata. 

In  like  manner  Livy  describes  Servius  Tullius,  who  had  seized 
the  crown  without  any  election,  returning  to  Rome  after  defeating 
the  Etruscans  without  any  doubts  about  his  being  confirmed  in  the 
royal  dignity  both  by  the  Patret  and  the  plehs :  "  Fusoque  ingenti 
hostium  exercitu,  baud  dubius  rex,  sen  Patrum  sen  plehis  anunos 
periclitaretur,  Romam  rediit."  -  Here  again  Livy  is  supplemented 
by  Cicero,  whose  account,  however,  is  on  this  occasion  rather  dif- 
ferent from  Livy's.  For  while  this  historian  makes  Servius  defer 
an  election  till  after  he  had  gained  a  victory,  Cicero  represents 
him  as  elected  soon  after  Tarquin  had  been  buried;  though  as 
dispensing  with  the  usual  mediation  of  an  Interrex  as  well  as  with 
the  authority  of  the  Senate:  thus  passing  over  that  body  alto- 
gether. For  he  proposes  himself  to  the  people,  and,  having  been 
elected  by  them,  immediately  obtains  a  Lex  Curiata,  without  the 
Patres  having  been  auctores.^  And  this  account,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, is  not  inconsistent  with  the  democratic  and  popular  character 
of  Servius. 

It  may  be  observed  that  on  all  these  occasions  Cicero  mentions 
the  king's  obtaining  a  Lex  Curiata,  whilst  Livy  says  notliing  about 
it,  contenting  himself  with  recording  that  the  king  was  elected 
by  the  people,  and  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  the  Senate.  It 
seems  to  be  this  circumstance  that  has  induced  many  German 
critics  to  regard  the  Patrum  audoritas  and  the  lex  curiata  de 
imperio  as  identical;  arguing,  we  suppose,  that  Livy  would 
certainly  have  mentioned  the  lex  had  it  not  been  the  same 
as  the  auctoritas.  But  we  have  already  shown  from  Cicero 
himself  that  they  were  different,  being  mentioned  by  him  as 
distinct  things.  It  would  seem  that  Cicero,  an  advocate  by 
profession,  looked  on  the  matter  with  a  lawyer's  eye ;  while  the 
historian  contented  himself  with  recording  the  two  essential  things, 

1  De  Rep.  ii.  20.  ^  Lib.  i.  42. 

*  "  Sed,  Tarquinio  sepulto,  popiilum  de  se  ipse  consuluit ;  jussusque 
regnare,  legem  de  imperio  suo  curiatam  tulit." — De  Leg.  ii.  21. 


,  V 

■  -/ 


■a-- 


A 


w    * 


■>:*■ 


the  election  by  the  people  and  the  confirmation  by  the  Senate, 
without  troubling  himself  about  the  lex;  which  indeed,  except  in 
the  very  improbable  case  of  the  people  changing  their  minds,  w^as 
little  more  than  a  matter  of  form  and  routine.  And  indeed  in  the 
Avhole  course  of  Roman  history  there  is  not  a  single  example  of  the 
Lex  Curiata  having  been  refused.^  We  say  a  matter  of  form  and 
routine  in  so  far  as  it  was  not  likely  that  a  public  body  should  refuse 
to  confirm  the  magistrate  whom  they  had  chosen ;  though,  technically 
speaking,  the  lex  was  something  more  than  a  confirmation,  as  without 
it  the  person  elected  could  not  exercise  the  imperium  or  potestas 
belonging  to  his  ofiice.  To  obtain  this  imperium  was  the  ostensible 
reason  for  the  application  of  the  magistrate  ;  but  virtually  the  grant- 
ing of  the  lex  by  the  curiae  was  a  confirmation  of  their  choice. 

If  there  is  any  truth  in  the  preceding  reasoning,  then  there  was 
a  plehs  from  the  earliest  times  of  Roman  history,  and  a  very  powerful 
one  too.     We  will  not  dispute  that  it  was  a  plehs  of  a  different  kind 
from  what  sprung  up  afterwards.     All  that  we  contend  for  here  is, 
that  it  was  plebeian  as  opposed  to  patrician ;  that  is,  that  it  had 
not  the  right  of  the  auspices,  ^nd  other  patrician  privileges.     But 
it  had  the  right  of  voting  in  the  Comitia  of  the  curia3,  and  there- 
fore formed  part  of  the  tribes,  and  belonged  to  the  gentes.      As 
belonging  to  the  curiae  it  partook  of  the  sacra  puhlica  of  the  curiae, 
and  as  belonging  to  the  gentes  it  participated  in  their  sacra  privata. 
Those  who  partook  not  of  these  sacra  were  npt,  at  least  before  the 
time  of  Servius,  full  citizens.     Kow  we  learn  from  Cicero  that  the 
Sabines  were  admitted   to  the  sacra,  and   therefore  became  full 
citizens  :  *'  (Romulus)  cum  T.  Tatio  rege  Sabinorum  foedus  icit.  .  .  . 
quo  foedere  et  Sabinos  in  civitatem  ascivit  sacris  communicatis  et 
regnum  suum  cum  illorum  rege  sociavit."^    But  Cicero  does  not  say 
so  much  of  the  Latins  admitted  into  the  city  by  Ancus  Marcius, 
but  only  "ascivit  eos   in  civitatem." 3     Unfortunately  the  manu- 
script  of  the  De  Republica  is  mutilated  in  the  reign  of  Tullus 
Hostilius,  and  therefore  we  have  not  Cicero's  testimony  as  to  what 
that  king  did  with  the  Albans  transplanted  to  Rome.     But  from 
Livy's  account  we  may  infer  that  they  were  admitted  to  the  full 
citizenship,  for  Tullus  promises    "civitatem  dare   plebi,"*   which 
is  the  technical  expression  for  that  admission.     And  after  mention- 
ing the  admission  of  several  Alban  families  among  the  Patres,  he 


1  See  Rubiuo,  Staatsv.  S.  388. 
»  De  Rep.  ii.  IS. 


u2 


«  De  Rep.  ii.  17. 
*  Liv.  i.  28. 


292 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


CLIENTS   AND   PLEBS. 


293 


proceeds  to  say  :   "  Et,  ut  omnium  ordinum  virihus  aliquid  ex  novo 
populo   adjiceretur,   equitum    decern    turmas    ex  Albania   legit."  ^ 
Here  "omnium  ordinum"  must  mean  all  the  three  orders;  namely, 
Senate,  knights,  and  populus,  or  members  of  the  curiae.     But  there 
is  nothing  in  Livy's  account  of  the  treatment  of  the  Latins  trans- 
ferred to'l^ome  by  Ancus  that  should  lead  us  to  think  that  they 
obtained  at  once  the  full  rights  of  citizens.     He  merely  speaks  of 
them  as  "in  civitatem  accepti,"^  which  is  about  equivalent  to  Cicero's 
*'ascivit,"  and  seems  only  to  mean  that  they  were  to  have  all  the 
immunities  of  a  Koman,  but  not  to  enjoy  his  privilege  of  the  vote. 

We  may  then,  perhaps,  assume  that  to  the  original  plehs  of 
Eomulus  enrolled  in  the  curiae,  or  rather  to  their  descendants,  had 
been  added  by  Tullus  a  part  at  least  of  the  Albans  transferred  to 
Kome.  We  say  a  part,  because,  as  he  appears  to  have  admitted 
only  six  Alban  families  into  the  patriciate,  we  may  suppose  that  he 
admitted  only  a  proportionate  number  of  plebeian  families  into  the 
curiae.  The  remainder  would  have  formed  the  nucleus  of  a  2>^^^s 
without  political  rights,  which  would  afterwards  have  been  vastly 
increased  by  the  Latins  transferred  to  Rome  in  the  reigns  of  Ancus 
and  Tarquin,  and  thus  have  ultimately  occasioned  the  necessity  for 
the  reform  made  by  Servius  Tullius. 

Professor  Schomann,  in  the  programme  to  his  course  of  lectures 
delivered  at  Greifswald  in  1831,  of  which  a  short  account  is  given 
by  Becker  in  his  "  Handbuch  der  Eomischen  Alterthiimer,"  ^  with 
the  view  of  refuting  some  of  its  leading  points,  appears  also  to  have 
been  of  opinion,  in  opposition  to  the  theory  of  Niebuhr,  that  there 
was  a  ^^/e65  in  the  Romulean  curiae ;  that  this  2^^ehs  consisted  at 
first  only  of  clients,  but  that  afterwards  all  the  conquered  Latins 
and  Etruscans  were  admitted.     But,  though  we  concur  in  the  first 
view,  that  clients  were  the  only  plebeians  in  the  curiae,  we  agree 
with  Becker  in  rejecting  the  second,  that  the  entire  conquered 
populations  were  admitted  into  them.     This  obviates  Becker's  ob- 
jection to  Schomann's  hypothesis,  that  in  later  times,  during  the 
Eepublic,   the   Curiate   Comitia   appear    to   be   wholly  patrician, 
because  the  clients  would  have  formed  a  very  small  minority  in 
comparison  with  the  whole  plebeian  body,  and  being  necessarily 
attached  to  the  interests  of  their  patrons  would,  on  most  occasions, 
have  been  influenced  by  them. 

It  might  be  objected  to  this  view.  Why  then  did  the  clients 
1  Liv.  i.  30.  2  i]^   33^  3  ^j^^  jj  ^^^^j^    j    g   g^^^  j^^^^   q-^-^ 


■vf- 

4-' 


make  so  determined  an  opposition  to  the  Patres,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  interregnum  after  the  death  of  Romulus  ?    To  this  we  reply,  that 
the  cases  are  not  parallel.    The  clients  were  in  a  very  different  posi- 
tion under  Romulus  and  his  first  four  successors  to  that  which  they 
occupied   after  the  Servian  reform,  which,   as   it  were,  swamped 
them.     To  belong  to  the  Curiate  Comitia  would  then  have  become 
a  sort  of  distinction,  and  would  thus  have  engendered,  over  and  above 
the  natural  ties  by  which  the  clients  were  bound  to  their  jiatroni, 
an  esprit  de  corps,  and  sort  of  aristocratic  feeling  with  regard  to  the 
vast  mass  of  plebeians  who  were  not  in  the  same  position.    Besides, 
in  these  later  times  no  constitutional  question  could  arise  of  such 
vast  importance  as  whether  there  should  be  one  king  or  a  hundred. 
This  was  a  grievance  which  came  home  to  them  practically.     The 
frequent  change  of  masters  might  have  become  very  galling  and 
inconvenient ;  and  though  even  with  respect  to  their  own  patroiius, 
they  might  serve  him  willingly  in  that  character,  yet  they  might 
not  have  liked  to  see  him,  or  the  head  of  his  house,  become  their 
king.     However  intimate  may  have  been  the  bonds  between  patron 
and  client  in  domestic  life,  yet  they  do  not  appear  to  have  extended 
to  political  life ;  and  though  in  most  public  questions,  especially 
after  the  time  of  Servius,  the  client  would  most  probably  vote  with 
his  patron,  yet  there  was  nothing  that  actually  obliged  him  to  do 
so.     However,  if  the  opposition  to  the  interregnum  did  not  proceed 
from  the  clients,  it  must  have  proceeded  from  the  patricians,  which 
is  a  hundred  times  more  improbable. 

But  the  whole  question  of  the  Curiate  Comitia,  or  Romulean 
populus,  is  so  intimately  bound  up  with  the  phrases  Patrum 
auctoritas,  Patres  auctores  fiunt,  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  ex^ 
amine  the  passages  which  Becker  has  adduced  in  support  of  his 
opinion  that  the  2J02mlus  was  in  fact  the  patricians. 

Becker,  as  we  have  said,  maintains  that  the  Patrum  Auctoritas 
is  nothing  more  than  the  approval,  or  confirmation,  of  the  CuricX^, 
or  populus,  and  that  therefore  Patres  aiictores  facti  means  just 
the  same  thing  as  a  lex  curiata  de  imperio.  Upon  this  he  very 
justly  remarks  (S.  324) :  *' At  the  first  glance,  it  will  indeed  certainly 
appear  surprising  that  if  the  election  (of  a  king  or  magistrate)  was 
made  by  the  Patres,  that  is  (according  to  Becker)  by  the  assembly 
of  the  curiae,  a  confirmation  by  a  resolution  of  the  same  curiiB 
should  still  be  considered  necessary.  But  the  phrase  Patres  auctores 
must  not,  in  the  most  ancient  times,  be  understood  in  the  sense  of 


294 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


BECKER'S   REASONING  EXAMINED. 


295 


confirmation.  Because,  if  from  a  comparison  of  the  passages  before 
cited  from  Cicero,  in  which  it  is  expressly  said  of  every  election  of 
a  kincr  that  the  same  curi«3  afterwards  bestowed  the  imperium  by 
a  Lex^'curiata,  with  the  passages  of  Livy  and  Dionysius  relating  to 
the  same  subject,  in  which,  instead  of  mentioning  the  lex,  it  is  as 
expressly  said,  Patres  auctores  facti,  r&v  TrarpiKcwv  iiTLKvpuiaavruiv  ra 
lolavra  toJ  7rXr^0££,~if,  I  say,  from  such  a  comparison  it  becomes 
plain  that  this  auctorem  fieri  is  nothing  else  but  the  Lex  Curiata 
itself,  in  like  manner  in  other  places  we  are  still  more  clearly 
directed  to  the  same  conclusion." 

Before  passing  on  to  these  ''  other  places,"  we  will  examine  for  a 
moment  what  we  have  before  us. 

The  passages  from  Cicero  here  alluded  to,  are  those  which  we 
have  already  quoted  a  little  before.^  But  will  it  be  believed  1  the 
most  material  of  them— namely,  the  first  of  those  mentioned  in  the 
note  beneath— is  given  by  Becker  in  a  garbled  manner  (S.  3 1 4,  Anm. 
628),  the  words  which  are  necessary  to  a  truthful  interpretation  of 
it  being  entirely  omitted  !    The  whole  passage  runs  as  follows  :— 

"  Quibus  quum  esse  prsestantem  Xumam  Pompilium  fama  ferret, 
pr^termissis  suis  civibus  regem  alienigenam /?af 7761^5  auctorihus  hihi 
ipse  populus  ascivit ;  eumque  ad  regnandum  Sabinum  hominem 
Eomam  Curibus  ascivit.  Qui  ut  hue  venit,  quamquam  populus 
curiatis  eum  comitiis  regem  esse  jusserat,  tamen  ipse  de  suo  imi)evio 
curiatam  legem  tulit." 

Kow  Becker  entirely  omits  the  first  sentence,  which,  as  we  have 
already  shown,  in  conjunction  with  the  second,  so  clearly  indicates 
three  acts,  viz.  an  election  by  the  Comitia,  an  authorization  by  the 
Senate,  and  again  a  confirmation  by  the  Comitia  ;  and  begins  his 
quotation  in  the  second  sentence,  "quamquam  populus,"  c^c.  It  is 
impossible,  we  fear,  to  attribute  so  important  omission  by  so  acute 
and  elaborate  a  critic  to  anything  but  wilful  mutilation. 

Here,  then,  instead  of  a  proof,  as  Becker  asserts,  that  audores 
fieri  and  lex  curiata  are  the  same  things,  is  a  proof,  as  we  have 
before  shown,  that  they  are  different  things.  About  the  passages 
in  such  an  author  as  Dionysius  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves ; 
only  we  will  observe,  in  passing,  that  even  here  Becker's  horse 
breaks  down  with  him  ;  for  the  TrXrjBog  and  the  TrarpiKioL  were 
assuredly  not  the  same  persons. 

1  See  above,  p.  287,  seq.  yi*.  De  Rep.  ii.  13,  17,  20,  21. 


■i 


1 ."  •• 


T  v-i: 


Becker  then  proceeds  as  follows  :  *'  Cicero  represents  it  as  the 
essential  purpose  of  the  Lex  Curiata,  or  at  all  events  as  a  great  ad- 
vantage connected  with  it,  that  the  people  was  thereby  enabled  to 
revoke  a  perhaps  hasty  choice,  or  had  by  it  what  is  called  the 
potestas  reprehendeyidi.  This  occurs  in  the  well-known  passage,  De 
Lege  Agr.  ii.  11  :  *  Majores  de  singulis  magistratibus  bis  vos  senten- 
tiam  ferre  voluerunt.  IN'am  cum  centuriata  lex  censoribus  ferebatur, 
cum  curiata  coeteris  patriciis  magistratibus,  turn  iterum  de  eisdeni 
judicabatur,  ut  esset  reprehendendi  potestas,  si  populum  beneficii 
sui  poeniteret.  I^unc  quia  prima  ilia  comitia  tenetis,  centuriata  et 
tributa,  curiata  tantum  auspiciorum  causa  remanserunt.  Hie  autem 
tribunus  plebis,  quia  videbat,  potestatem  neminem  injussu  populi 
aut  plebis  posse  habere,  curiatis  ea  comitiis,  qua3  vos  non  sinitis, 
confirmavit :  tributa,  qute  vestra  erant,  sustulit.  Ita,  cum  majores 
binis  comitiis  voluerint  vos  de  singulis  magistratibus  judicare,  hie 
homo  popularis  ne  unam  quidem  populo  comitiorum  potestatem 
reliquit.' 

"  The  separate  propositions  of  this  important  passage  will  be  ex- 
amined further  on  ;  at  present  it  is  only  necessary  to  advert  to  the 
most  material  part :  that  Cicero  represents  as  the  most  essential  pur- 
pose of  the  Lex  Curiata  \h.Q  potestas  reprehendendi  comitia,  the  his  judi- 
care de  singulis  magistratibus.  But  this  potestas  is  nothing  more  than 
the  right  of  confirmation  possessed  by  the  curice  :  because,  whether 
WiQ  patres  auctores  fiunt  ox  not,  the  second  decision,  i\iQ  his  judicare 
takes  place,  and  in  the  hands  of  the  Patres  lies  the  reprehensio 
comitiorum}  If  that  is  of  itself  quite  clear,  and  a  further  repre- 
hensio is  not  to  be  thought  of,  yet  this  also  most  decidedly  appears 
to  be  Cicero's  meaning  in  a  parallel  passage,  forming  a  kind  of  com- 
mentary on  the  above  words  (Pro  Plane' 3)  :  '  ^ani  si  ita  esset, 
quod  patres  apud  majores  nostros  tenere  non  potuerunt,  ut  repre- 
hensores  essent  comitiorum,  id  haberent  judices ;  vel  quod  multo 
etiam  minus  est  ferendum.  Turn  enim  magistratum  non  gerebat  is, 
qui  ceperat,  si  patres  auctores  non  erant  facti  :  nunc  postulatur  a 
vobis,  ut  ejus  exilio,  qui  creatus  sit,  judicium  populi  Romani  repre- 
hendatis  : '  with  which  may  also  be  compared  a  similar  passage  of 

1  This  passage  is  so  puzzling  that  we  subjoin  the  original  German  ;  to  show 
that,  to  the  best  of  onr  apprehension,  we  have  rif^htly  translated  it.  "  Diese 
j)otestas  ist  nun  eben  nichts  weiter,  als  das  Bestatigungsreeht  der  Curien  : 
indem  die  patres  auctores  fiunt  oder  nicht,  lindet  die  zweite  Entscheiduug, 
das  his  judicare  Statt,  und  in  den  Hiindeu  der  patres  liegt  die  rcpreliensio 
comitiorum.'' 


'■if 


296 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


BECKER'S   REASONING   EXAMINED. 


297 


De  Rep.  ii.  32  (concerning  the  founding  of  the  republican  constitu- 
tion) :  *  Quodque  erat  ad  obtinendam  potentiam  nobilium  vel  maxi- 
mum, vehementer  id  retinebatur  :  populi  comitia  ne  essent  rata,  nisi 
ea  patrum  approbavisset  auctoritas.'  AVhen  Cicero  thus  places  the 
essence  of  the  Lex  Curiata  in  the  2^otestas  re2:>7rhendencli  comitia, 
when  he  just  as  decidedly  ascribes  this  rept'ehensio  to  the  Patrum 
Auctoritas,  that  is,  to  the  auctores  fieri ;  when  it  is  said  at  one  time 
of  the  Lex  Curiata,  and  then  again  of  the  patres  auctores  fiej-i.  that 
therein  lay  the  iterum  judicare,  it  must  appear  quite  decided  that 
both  are  only  different  expressions  for  one  and  the  same  thing. 
For  it  is  altogether  inconceivable  that  the  resolutions  of  the  Comitia 
should  have  been  subject  to  a  reprehensio  first  by  the  refusal  of  the 
Patrum  Auctoritas,  and  when  this  has  been  accorded,  again  by  the 
refusal  of  the  Lex  Curiata  ;  and  by  such  a  nonsensical  assumption 
it  would  not  have  been  a  second  judicium  that  took  place,  but  a 
third,  which  is  quite  contrary  to  Cicero's  words." 

This  passage  is  a  good  specimen  of  what  a  hopeless  puzzle  even 
an  acute  critic  may  find  himself  in  if  he  starts  from  wrong  pre- 
misses, and  is  obstinately  bent  on  pursuing  the  same  route  he  has 
once  entered  on.  We  believe  that  we  have  given  a  correct  version 
of  the  passage,  yet  we  must  confess  that  the  process  of  the  argu- 
mentation does  not  appear  quite  clear  to  us ;  and  we  are  rather 
inclined  to  doubt  whether  Becker  himself  had  a  distinct  idea  of  it 
in  his  own  mind.  The  main  drift  of  it,  however,  appears  to  be 
to  show  that  the  rei^eliensio,  or  potestas  reprehendendi  comitia^  or 
the  iterum  judicare,  is,  in  some  of  the  passages  quoted,  ascribed  to 
the  Patrum  Auctoritas,  in  others  to  the  Lex  Curiata;  that  the  Patrum 
Auctoritas  and  Lex  Curiata  must  therefore  be  one  and  the  same 
thing.  But  we  must  confess  that  we  cannot  see  where  the  repre- 
hensio  is  connected  by  Cicero  with  patrum  auctoritas. 

The  passages,  properly  construed,  appear  to  us  to  prove  precisely 
the  reverse  of  what  Becker  proposes  to  establish  by  them.  In  that 
from  the  De  Lege  Agraria,  Cicero  is  addressing  the  people,  and 
tells  them  that  they  used  to  have  the  reprehendendi  potestas.  He 
does  not  once  mention  the  name  of  the  P aires;  while  in  the  second 
passage,  quoted  from  the  Oration  for  Plancius  by  way  of  commen- 
tary on  the  first,  Cicero  distinctly  denies  that  the  Patres  ever  had 
the  potestas  reprehendendi :  ''  Quod  (viz.  ut  reprehensores  essent 
coxmiioYwm)  patres  apud  majores  nostros  tejiere  non  potuernnt.'"  It 
follows,  therefore,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  the  Patres  men- 


if". 

-  *i5- 

■    -Jik 


V' 

-fir" 


tioned  in  the  extract  from  the  Oration  for  Plancius,  must  have  been  a 
body  distinct  from  the  popuhis  mentioned  in  the  extract  from  the 
De  Lege  Agraria ;  otherwise  Cicero  could  not  have  known  what 
he  was  talking  about,  and  fell  into  a  gross  and  absurd  contradic- 
tion. But  if  these  Patres  w^ere  a  body  distinct  from  the  popiduSy 
we  suppose  it  will  not  be  maintained  that  they  could  have  been 
anything  else  but  the  Senate*  They  are  mentioned  again  in  the 
following  sentence  of  the  second  extract : — "  Tum  enim  magis- 
tratum  non  gerebat  is  qui  ceperat  si  patres  auctores  non  erant 
facti."  Therefore  these  Patres,  though  they  had  not  the  2)otestas 
re2)rehendendi,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  the  power  of  passing  a  lex 
curiata  de  irti2)e7'io,  had,  nevertheless,  the  power  of  setting  aside  a 
magistrate  who  had  been  elected  by  the  people.  l!^ow,  what  could 
this  have  been  but  the  Auctoritas  Patrum — the  authority  of  the 
Senate — given  to  the  election  of  a  magistrate  by  the  people  1  with- 
out which  his  election  was  not  complete ;  but,  having  which,  he 
could  again  appear  before  the  people  to  have  his  election  ratified 
by  them,  and  to  receive  the  imperium.  Cicero  is  contrasting  the 
power  proposed  to  be  accorded  to  the  Judices  with  that  anciently 
enjoyed  by  the  Senate. 

*'  For  if  it  were  so,"  he  says,  "  then  the  Judices  would  have  (a 
prerogative) which  (even)  the  Patres  (i.e.  the  Senate)  could  not  obtain 
in  the  time  of  our  ancestors,  namely,  that  they  should  be  the 
reviewers  of  the  Comitia  ;  or  rather  they  would  have  (a  preroga- 
tive) which  is  still  more  insufterable.  For  in  those  times  he  who 
had  been  elected  a  magistrate  was  merely  debarred  from  entering 
on  his  magistracy  if  the  Patres  had  not  been  auctores  (that  is,  if  the 
Senate  had  not  approved  his  election) ;  while,  in  the  present  in- 
stance, it  is  required  of  you  to  i^everse  the  decision  of  the  Uoman 
people  (that  is,  instead  of  merely,  like  the  Senate,  withholding  your 
consent)  by  the  banishment  of  him  who  has  been  elected  (that  is, 
instead  of  merely  debarring  him  from  office)." 

Now  here  it  is  first  said  that  the  Patres  could  not  revoke  an 
election  ;  that  is,  of  course,  after  the  election  had  been  completed ; 
for  it  was  not  complete  till  they  had  given  their  authority.  But  if 
they  had  once  given  their  authority  they  could  not  recall  it.  They 
had,  however,  in  the  first  instance,  the  power  of  withholding  this 
authority — **si  patres  auctores  non  erant  facti" — and  then  the  person 
elected  did  not  obtain  his  magistracy.  The  p)^V^^^^-)  on  the  other 
hand,  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  the  Comitia  Curiata,  had  the  power 


298 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


BECKERS   REASONING  EXAMINED. 


299 


of  virtually  cancelling  their  election,  even  after  it  had  been  com- 
pleted by  the  sanction  of  the  Fathers.  For  when  the  king,  or 
other  magistrate,  came  to  them  for  a  lex  curiata  de  imperio,  they 
might  refuse  it.     And  this  was  the  hlsjudicare. 

We  hope  it  is  now  tolerably  clear  that,  in  the  opinion  of  Cicero  at 
least,  the  Patrum  Auctoritas  and  the  Lex  Curiata  were  not  the  same 
thing.  And  the  matter  will  appear  still  clearer  from  the  third 
passage  from  Cicero,  cited  by  Becker ;  which,  however,  as  is  too 
frequent  with  him,  he  has  mutilated  to  serve  his  ends.  The 
passage,  in  its  integrity,  runs  as  follows  :— "  Tenuit  igitur  hoc  in 
st'a.tii' senatus  rempublicam  temporibus  illis  ;  ut  in  populo  libero 
pauca  per  populum,  pleraque  senatus  auctoritate  et  instituto  ac  more 
gererentur  :  atque  uti  consules  potestatem  haberent  tempore  dum- 
taxat  annuam,  genere  ipso  ac  jure  regium.  Quodque  erat  ad 
obtinendam  potentiam  nobilium  vel  maximum,  vehementer  id 
retinebatur,  populi  comitia  ne  essent  rata,  nisi  ea  patrum  appro- 
bavisset  auctoritas  "  (De  Kep.  ii.  32). 

Becker  here  omits  the  first  sentence,  in  which  is  set  forth  the 
great  power  and  authority  of  the  Senate,  as  opposed  to  the  power  of 
the  popuhts;  and  thus  the  context  shows  that  in  the  last  sentence 
the  Populi  Comitia  could  not  have  been  Comitia  of  patricians,  and 
that  the  Patrum  Auctoritas  could  not  have  been  a  Lex  Curiata,  which 
would  only  have  been  an  authority  of  the  populus,  but  a  ratification 
hy  the  Senate  of  what  had  been  done  in  the  Comitia  ;  for  the  patres 
mentioned  in  the  second  sentence  are  indisputably  the  same  body  as 
the  senatus  mentioned  in  the  first.     And  thus  all  these  passages 
show  directly  the  reverse  of  what  Becker  proposes  to  prove  by  them. 
When  Becker  concludes  his  argument  by  saying :  ''It  is  alto- 
gether inconceivable  that  the  resolutions  of  the  Comitia  should  have 
been  subject  to  a  reprehensio,  first  by  the  refusal  of  the  Patrum 
Auctoritas,  and  when  this  has  been  accorded,  again  by  the  refusal 
of  the  Lex  Curiata ;  and  by  such  a  nonsensical  assumption  it  would 
not  have  been  a  second  judicmm  that  took  place,  but  a  third,  which 
is  quite  contrary  to  Cicero's  words"— it  is  only  his  own  opinion 
that  is  *' nonsensical  j"  which  amounts,  in  fact,  to  this,  that  one 
and  one  do  not  make  two.     Otherwise  he  must  assume  that  if  A 
gives  a  decision,  and  B  gives  a  decision,  this  is  to  count  for  two 
given  by  A.     It  was  only  the  popuhts  that  his  judicahat. 

In  the  later  times  of  the  republic  it  was  provided  by  the  Lex 
:Mienia,  passed  probably  in  the  year  B.C.  287,  that  the  Auctoritas 


'h- 


f.t.1 


u-^:-' 


;;-; 


1 


Patrum  should  be  given  to  the  elections  of  magistrates  by  antici- 
pation, and  before  the  elections  took  place ;  or,  in  the  words  of  Livy, 
"Prius  quam  populus  suffragium  in  eat,  in  incertum  comitiorum  even- 
tum  Patres  auctores  fiunt :  "^  thus  reducing  the  auctoritas  to  a  mere 
form.  But  since,  as  we  have  seen,  when  Livy  thus  speaks  of  it, 
the  Lex  Curiata  was  not  yet  in  existence,  he  could  not  have  thouglit 
that  the  abolisliing  of  the  auctoritas  also  abolished  the  Lex  Curiata. 
Indeed,  Becker  is  forced  to  admit  that  "  if  through  the  Leges  Pub- 
lilia  and  Majnia  it  was  ordained  that  thenceforth  the  Patrum 
Auctoritas,  or  the  acceptance  by  the  Patres,  was  to  precede  the  reso- 
lutions and  tJie  elections  of  the  Comitia,  and  thus,  without  it,  no 
magistrate  could  be  chosen,  and,  if  at  the  same  time,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  Lex  Curiata  still  continued  to  be  given  after  the 
election^  it  must  be  allowed  that  this  seems  to  speak  against  their 
identity.  But  the  contradiction  is  only  apparent,  and  may  be 
satisfactorily  explained  from  the  history  of  the  Lex  Curiata."  ^ 

Becker  endeavours  to  reconcile  the  contradiction  as  follows  : 
During  the  early  republic  he  supposes  it  to  he  prohahle  (''es  erfolgte 
wahrscheinlich  ")  that  the  Patrum  Auctoritas — that  is,  according  to 
him,  the  Lex  Curiata — was  given  immediately  after  the  election,  at 
the  rogation  of  a  magistrate  still  in  olfice  ;  so  that  the  imperium, 
like  the  auspices,  was  given  by  anticipation,  though  it  went  over 
to  the  new  magistrates  only  after  the  abdication  of  the  old  ones : 
yet  at  the  same  time  he  allows  that  when  a  magistrate  immediately 
entered  on  office,  as  in  the  case  of  a  dictator,  it  was  he  himself  who 
demanded  the  Lex  Curiata.  After  the  introduction  of  the  Lex 
Ma3nia,  lie  thinks  that,  as  the  imperium  could  not  be  given  to  a 
person  unknown — that  is,  "in  incertum  comitiorum  eventum "  ^ — 
though  he  has,  according  to  his  own  view  that  Patrum  Auctoritas 
is  the  same  as  the  Lex  Curiata,  virtually  assumed  that  it  could — 
the  lex  must  have  contained  a  determination  {Bestimniung)  with 
regard  to  the  lex  curiata  de  imperio  ;  and  that  the  Patrum  Aucto- 
ritas given  before  the  election  was  only  an  assurance  that  the  result 
of  it  would  not  be  hindered,  that  no  opposition  would  be  offered ; 
and  hence  the  legitimately-elected  magistrate  was  irrevocable,  and 

1  Lib.  i.  17.  2  S.  326. 

*  Yet  Livy  says  that  tlie  auctoHias  was  so  given  ;  "in  incertum  comitiorum 
eventum  Patres  auctores  fiunt." — Lib.  i.  17.  Another  proof  that  \\\(i  auctoritat 
was  not  the  Lex  Curiata.  For  as  Paul  the  Deacon  says  (p.  50),  in  a  passage 
quoted  by  Becker  :  "  Cum  imperio  esse  diccbatur  apud  antiques,  cui  noininalim 
a  populo  dabatur  imperium."     But  a  person  not  elected  cuuld  not  be  nam<id. 


300 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


POPULUS   AND   PLEBS. 


301 


remained  so  without  the  bestowal  of  the  imj^rium  by  the  Lex 
Curiata ;  which  legally,  in  consequence  of  the  assurance  before 
given,  could  not  be  refused;  but  which  might  be  delayed  and 
hindered  by  manifold  chicanes,  and  especially  by  intercession  of 
the  tribunes.  And  tliis  brings  Becker  to  his  conclusion,  which  he 
gives  in  large  type  :  "  And  thus  it  is  quite  naturally  explained  how, 
indeed,  originally  the  lex  curiata  de  imperio  signified  entirely  the 
same  thing  as  the  Patrum  Auctoritas,  that  is,  the  auctores  fieri  of 
the  patricians ;  but  that  after  the  Lex  Mffinia  the  two  must  have 
appeared  as  separate  acts." 

On  this  argument  we  shall  remark,  first,  that  it  proceeds  entirely 
on  assumption  without  any  proof.     The   assertion  that  the  Lex 
Ma?nia  "  must  have  contained  a  determination  regarding  the  Lex 
Curiata  "  is  entirely  gratuitous,  for  we  know  only  the  general  drift 
of  that  law,  and  not  its  particular  provisions  :  and  hence  all  the 
conclusions  which  Becker  draws  from  the  assumption  are  mere  con- 
jectures, made  to  bolster  up  a  theory  otherwise  untenable.    Second, 
it  is  most  singular  and  surprising  that  what  originally  was  one 
thing  should  become  eventually  two  things ;  and  that  the  framers 
of  the  Lex  Ma3nia  should  be  such  bunglers  as  to  make  the  term 
ratrum  auctoritas,  which  had  before   stood  for  the  Lex   Curiata 
itself,  to  signify  only  the  assurance  of  it.     We  may  be  quite  sure 
that  if,  as  Becker  supposes,  by  the  Lex  Mcenia  the  Patres  auctores 
Jieri  meant  only  their  promise  beforehand  that  the  Lex  Curiata 
should  not  be  withheld,   it  would  not  have  used  the  equivocal 
phrase  of  Patrum  auctoritas,  which  by  long  usage  must  have  ac- 
quired quite  a  dift^rent  meaning,  but  would  have  adopted  a  new 
term  to  designate  the  new  practice.     But  it  is  quite  evident  that 
Becker's  ingenious  invention  is,  to  use  a  favourite  expression  of  his 
own,  only  an  Ausflucht,  or  evasion.     If,  guided  by  the  authority  of 
all  the  passages  on  the  subject,  and  by  the  plain  sense  of  the  words, 
we  take  "inincertum  comitiorum  eventum  patres  auctores  fieri," 
to  mean  that  it  was  the  Senate  who  now  gave  their  authority  before 
instead   of  after  the  election,  but  that  a    lex  curiata  de    imj^erio 
passed  by  the  jyojmlus  was  still  necessary  afterwards  to  the  magis- 
trate elected,  everything  becomes  clear  and  intelligible. 

Having  thus  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  Patrum  Auctoritas 
and  the  Lex  Curiata  were  two  distinct  things,  that  the  first  related 
to  the  Senate  and  the  second  to  the  popidus,  and  that  therefore 
the  argument  founded  on  their  identity,  to  prove  that  the  Patres 


1^  -' 


and  the  populus  were  also  identical,  falls  to  the  ground,  we  shall 
now  proceed  to  examine  some  of  the  passages  which  have  been 
adduced  to  prove  the  same  thing,  on  the  assumption  of  their 
showing  that  the  populus  was  in  fact  the  patricii.  First  of  all, 
however,  we  must  make  a  few  preliminary  remarks. 

The  two  grand  divisions  of  the  Roman  nation  were  into  patri- 
cians and  plebeians.  But,  besides  these,  there  was  a  third  division 
of  the  popidus,  or  people  properly  so  called,  consisting,  till  the  time 
of  Servius,  of  those  who  had  a  right  to  vote  in  the  Comitia  Curiata ; 
and  this  division,  as  we  have  before  endeavoured  to  show,  contained 
both  patricians  and  plebeians.  The  term  2^lebeian,  as  opposed  to 
patrician,  ran  through  all  the  relations  of  life,  domestic  as  well  as 
political.  But  the  term  pojiulus  was  purely  political,  and,  indeed, 
that  only  in  a  general  or  collective  sense,  denoting  a  body.  For  we 
cannot  say  vir  popularis,  in  the  sense  of  a  man  belonging  to  the 
people ;  but  we  may  say  vir  pdebeius,  or  vir  j^fdriciits,  or  even 
femina  pdebeia,  oy  femina  patricia,  in  the  sense  of  a  person  belonging 
to  the  plebeian  or  patrician  orders.  That  part  of  the  pdebs,  there- 
fore, which  did  not  belong  to  the  populus,  or  which  had  not  the 
vote,  was  thus  distinguished  in  one  way  from  the  patricians,  and 
in  another  way  from  the  populus;  so  that  the  terms  />/f65  and 
populus  might  be  as  properly  used  in  opposition  to  each  other  as 
the  terms  p)^^^^  and  pati-icii,  or  patres ;  and,  indeed,  they  are  fre- 
quently so  employed.     Thus,  in  the  Marcian  prophecy  : 

"  lis  ludis  facicndis  prreerit  prjetor 
Is,  qui  jus  populo  2>icbeique  dabit  summum."^ 

So  also  in  the  prayer  of  Scipio  :  "  Divi  deajque  maria  terrasque  qui 
colitis,  vos  precor  quajsoque,  uti,  qua?  in  meo  imperio  gesta  sunt, 
geruntur,  postque  gerentur,  ea  mihi,  populo  plebique  Romana?,  sociis 
nominique  Latino  .  .  .  bene  verruncent."  ^  And  in  Cicero's  Oration 
for  Murena  :  ^  "  Ut  ea  res  mihi,  magistratui(|ue  meo,  p)opulo  plebique 
Pomanaj  bene  atque  feliciter  eveniret."  The  phrase  thus  appears  to 
have  been  used  in  solemn  invocations ;  it  descended,  probably, 
from  a  very  high  antiquity,  and  continued  in  use  long  after  the 
marked  distinction  between  p)opulus  and  plebs,  which  first  occa- 
sioned it,  had  disappeared. 

From  these  and  similar  passages,  Niebuhr,  who  has  been  followed 
by  many  other  critics,  assumed  that  the  Eomulean  pop)ulus  was  com- 


1  Liv.  XXV.  12. 


2  11).  xxix.  27. 


Cap.  i. 


302 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


posed  wholly  of  patricians  ;  and,  to  esiablisli  this  view,  he  adduces 
the  following  passages.^  Livy,  after  relating  the  story  of  the  augur 
Attus  IS^avius,  says  :  ''  Auguriis  certe  sacerdotioque  auguruni  tantus 
honos  accessit,  ut  nihil  belli  domique  postea,  nisi  auspicato,  gere- 
letur  •  concilia  populi,  exercitus  vocati,  summa  rerum,  ubi  aves  non 
admisissent,  dirimerentur."  ^  On  this  passage  Mebuhr  observes, 
that  as  concilia,  which  must  be  different  from  the  general  comitia  of 
the  centuries,  or  the  exercitus,  are  nevertheless  named  along  with 
them,  and  as  we  cannot  think  of  a  co7iciIiu7n  pleUs,  because  that 
would  not  be  held  under  augury,  a  concilium  po2mli  must  here  be 
the  same  as  an  assembly  of  the  patricians. 

On  this  we  may  remark,  first,  that  exercitus  is  here  to  be  taken 
in  its  ordinary  sense  of  an  army.  For  Livy  is  talking  of  the  affairs 
both  of  peace  and  war ;  and  as  concilia  populi  certainly  relate  to 
peace  there  would  be  nothing  to  be  referred  to  war  if  exercitus 
vocati  also  related  to  peace.  Besides,  we  doubt  whether  Livy 
(though  such  a  usage  may  be  found  in  old  forms)  ever  speaks  of 
the  Comitia  Centuriata  under  the  name  of  exercitus,  except  m  his 
description  of  their  first  institution  by  Servius.  For  though  their 
ori-mal  organization  was,  no  doubt,  partly  military,  yet  when 
assembled  in  Comitia,   as  IS^iebuhr  here  views  them,  it  was  for 

civil  business.  -r.  it    i 

Such  a  council  it  was,  continues  Kiebuhr,  to  whom  Pubhcola 
did  homage  by  lowering  the/a^m;  "  Yocato  ad  concilium  populo, 
summissis  fascibus,  in  concionem  ascendit."  ^  Lut  Livy  adds: 
^'Gratum  id  multitudini  spectaculum  fuit  3  summissa  sibi  esse 
imperii  insi-nia;"  and  the  term  multiiudo  means  the  plebs,  or 
populace,  rattier  than  the  patricians.  This  example,  therefore,  is 
against  Niebuhr,  instead  of  for  him,  and  shows  that  the  term 
populus  may  include  plebeians.  ^  ^ 

Such  a  council,  proceeds  Niebuhr,  decided  between  the  Ancians 
and  Ardeates— "  concilio  populi  a  magistratibus  dato."  ^  But  that 
it  consisted,  at  least  partly,  of  plebeians,  appears  from  Livy's 
saying,  *'  Consurgit  P.  Scaptius  de  plehe ;''  and,  indeed,  the  whole 

1  Rom.  Gescli.  B.  i.  S.  443.  '  Lib  i.  36. 

s  Livy  ii  7.  We  are  aware  that  Livy's  authority  for  the  use  of  the 
xvord  concUium  is  rejected  by  those  who  maintain  that  he  did  not  understand 
his  own  language  ;  but  we  do  not  participate  in  that  opinion.  We  have 
adverted  to  this  question  in  th«  Introduction,  when  speaking  of  Livy  s  merits 
as  an  historian.  *  i^'  ""''  ^^' 


niebuhk's  view. 


303 


tenor  of  this  and  the  following  chajjter  shows  that  the  concilium 
in  question  was  the  people  assembled  by  tribes. 

Another  passage  on  which  Mebuhr  very  much  relies  is  Livy's 
account  of  the  inquiry  into  the  murder  of  the  military  tribune 
Postumius :  ''  His  consulibus  principio  anni  senatus  consultum 
factum  est,  ut  de  qutestione  Postuniianae  caddis  tribuni  primo 
quoque  tempore  ad  i)lebom  ferrent ;  plebesque  prasficeret  qua3stioni, 
quem  vellefc.  A  plehe  consensu  populi  consulibus  negotium  maii- 
datur,"  &C.1  But  we  really  cannot  see  any  difficulty  here.  The 
tribunes  of  the  plebs  consulted  on  the  matter  the  plebeians,  either 
in  a  contio,  or,  more  probably,  in  the  Comitia  Tributa ;  the  plebs 
entrusted  the  investigation  to  the  consuls,  and  this  decision  was 
agreed  to  bj''  the  pojjulus,  in  the  centuriate  assembly.  For,  after 
the  reform  of  Servius,  the  orders  composing  the  Comitia  Centuriata 
obtained  the  name  of  2^opulus,  which  had  previously  been  borne 
only  by  those  belonging  to  the  Comitia  Curiata.  And  thus  Cicero, 
in  describing  the  operation  of  the  vote  in  the  Comitia  Centuriata, 
says  :  "  Quibus  ex  centum  quatuor  centuriis  (tot  enim  reliquse  sunt) 
octo  sol 33  si  accesserunt,  confecta  est  vis  pojmli  universa."  -  The 
people  assembled  by  tribes,  but  not  in  Comitia  Tributa,  was  also 
called  populus.  And  it  was  from  this  wider  extension  of  the 
meaning  of  the  term  jyopulus,  that  it  began  to  lose  much  of  its 
former  distinctive  character ;  so  that  at  last,  in  general  usage  at 
least,  there  was  virtually  but  little  difference  between  it  and  plebs. 

Becker  2  has  pointed  out  another  passage  in  which  the  term 
populus  must  certainly  comprehend  a  large  j^ortion  of  plebs.  It 
respects  the  dedication  of  a  temple  by  the  plebeian  curule  ^dile 
Flavins  :  "  ^Edeni  Concordia^  in  area  Yulcani  summa  invidia  7iobi' 
Hum  dedicavit ;  coactusque  consensu  po2)uli,  Cornelius  Barbatus, 
pontifex  maximus,  verba  praiire,"  *  &c.  Here,  as  Becker  remarks, 
the  consent  of  the  patricians  is  not  to  be  thought  of,  and  therefore 
consensus  populi  means  in  this  place  nothing  more  than  the  universal 
desire  of  the  peoj^le.  AVe  think,  however,  from  the  word  coactus, 
that  it  means  something  more  than  this ;  namely,  a  resolution 
of  the  people  in  the  Comitia  Centuriata. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  all  antiquity,  the  patrician  class 
arose  from  those  whom  Komulus  had  elected  into  his  Senate.  But 
Becker  will  not  allow  this,  and  argues  thus  :  "  If  Eomulus  chose  the 


^  Livy,  iv.  51. 

3  liom.  Alterth.  Th.  ii.  Abth.  i.  S.  137. 


2  De  Rep.  ii.  22. 
*  Liv.  ix.  46. 


304 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


senators  out  of  the  nobles  (Edelgeborenen),  and  if  only  they  and 
their  families,  or  their  posterity,  were  2xUres  and  patricii,  we  may 
very  naturally  ask,  What  position  in  the  state  had  then  the  other 
nobles  who  had  not  been  able  to  obtain  the  same  distinction,  and 
in  what  class  of  the  population  were  they  to  find  a  place  ?  For  it 
is  not  conceivable  that  there  were  in  the  curice  two  classes  with 
unequal  rights,  patricians  and  non-patricians;  they  are  entirely 
patrician:  and  yet  it  cannot  be  meant,  either  that  the  senators 
alone  with  tlieir  families  constituted  the  curiae,  or  that  the  nobles 
who  had  not  attained  the  patrician  dignity  passed  for  plehs.  ^  For 
they  would  thus  have  stood  between  the  patricians  and  the  clients, 
or  plebeians,  without  name  or  signification."  ^ 

The  question  whether  the  curias  contained  patricians  and  non- 
patricians  we   have  already  examined.     To  the   question,   What 
became  of  the  other  nobles  1  we  answer,  there  were  none.     It  was 
only  by  the  act  of  being  chosen  into  the  Senate  that  Eoman  nobles, 
or  patricians,  were  at  first  created.     One  hundred  heads  of  families 
in  that  small  population  of  the  Eamnes,  one-tenth  of  the  whole, 
must  have  more  than  exhausted  those  who  had  anteriorly  any  pre- 
tensions to  nobility.    Livy  does  not  mention  that  the  senators  were 
made  from  nobles,  and  intimates  the  probability  that  there  were 
no  more  than  a  hundred  who  were  fit  for  the  office.^     ISTor  does 
Cicero  say  that  the  Patres  were  chosen  from  nobles,  but  only  from 
the  leading  men,  or  principes.^     It  is  only  Dionysius  who,  with 
his  frequent  preposterous  absurdity,  makes  the  ^xe^res  chosen  out 
of  the  patricii  !  *  thus  putting  the  cart  before  the  horse.     Yet  it  is 
on  this  author  that  Becker  founds  his  reasoning  1 

We  have  here  been  speaking  only  of  the  patrician  families  created 
by  Eomulus.  How  after  that  period  patricians  were  made  is  a  difficult 
question ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt,  we  think,  that  the  following 
kings  possessed  the  prerogative  of  conferring  that  dignity.  Thus 
Dionysius  says  that  Ancus  Marcius  made  Tarquin  a  senator  and 
patrician  ;  and  his  account  is  confirmed  by  Dio  Cassius,  a  better 
authority  than  himself.^     In  like  manner  we  learn  from  Suetonius 


1  Rom.  Alterth.  ii.  i.  145. 

2  "  Centum  creat  senatores  :  sive  quia  is  Humerus  satis  erat,  sive  quia  sol 
centum  erant,  qui  creari  Patres  possent."— Lib.  i.  8. 

3  "  In  regium  consilium  delegerat  principes."— De  Rep.  ii.  8. 
*  e/c  T(uv  TrarpiKiccv  dudpas  eKarhv  iiriKe^afMevos. — Lib.  ii.  12. 

5  Ka\  avrdv  6  MdpKios  .   .  .   fis  rhv  twv  irarpmuv  t€  koL  ^ovKivrwv  dpid^iht^ 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   PATRTCTAXS. 


305 


that  the  r^ens  Octavia,  originally  of  Yelitra},'  a  Latin  or  Yolscian 
city,  was  first  chosen  by  Tarcpiinius  Priscus  into  the  Eoman  fjenfes, 
and  then  transferred  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  patrician  order  by 
Servius  Tullius.     We  here  insert  the  sentence,  because  it  has  been 
made  a  matter  of  dispute  from  the  misplacing  of  a  comma  :   "  Ea 
gens  a  Tarquinio  Frisco  rcge  inter  Eomanas  gentcs  allecta,  in  sena- 
tum  moxa  ServioTuUio  in  patricias  transducta,  procedente  tempore 
ad  plebcm  se  contulit."  i     In  the  editions  the  first  comma  is  placed 
after  senatum,  making  the  sense  to  be  that  the  Octavians  were 
elected  among  the  lioman  cjodes  and  into  the  Senate  by  Tarquin, 
and  afterwards  into  the  patricians  by  Servius  Tullius  ;  and  Eecker 
remarks  that  the  placing  of  the  comma  after  allecta  gives  a  nmcli 
Avorse  sense,  or  none  at  all.'-     Eut  we  are  so  far  from  agreeing  with 
this  dictum,  that,  on  the  contrary,  we  think  the  comma  after  sena- 
tum  makes  neither  sense  nor  grammar.    For,  first,  it  is  not  probable 
that  Tarquin  would  have  created  the  Octavians  senators  without 
making  them  patricians  ;  nor  do  we  believe  that  there  were  any 
plebeian  senators  under  the  kings.  Secondly,  ''  allecta  mter  Eomanas 
gentes  in  senatum,"  is  a  very  peculiar  construction  to  denote  the  two 
acts  of  election  into  the  r/entes  and  into  the  Senate,  and  a  copula 
would  at  all  events  seem  necessary — "  ef  in  senatum."   Thirdly,  it  is 
more  agreeable  to  the  Latin  idiom  that  the  two  clauses  should  end 
with  a  partici])lc,  alhda,  traimhtda.     But,  however  we  may  read 
the  passage,  it  still  shows  that  the  Octavians  were  made  senators 
and  patricians  either  by  Tarquin  or  Servius.     The  act  of  electing  a 
new  family  into  the  patricians  Avas  called  co-opt  alio.     This  act  does 
not  seem  to  mean,  as  Eccker  supposes,*^  an  election  by  the  curies 
that  is,  according  to  him,  by  the  patricians,  into  that  body.     I'he 
act  might  be  done  either  by  the  king,  or,  during  the  republic,  by 
the  peo]de.     This  is  clearly  shown  by  the  speech  of  Canuleius  in 
Livy  :   ''  (juid  ?    hoc  si  poUuit  nobilitatem  istani  vestram,  quam 
pleri(iue  oriundi  ex  Albanis  ct  Sabinis,  non  genere  nee  sanguine, 
sed  p^r  co-optationem  in  Patres  habetis,  aut  ah  ref/ibus  lecti,  aut  post 
reges  exactos  jussu  populi,"  kn}     The  contrary  view  seems  to  be 


aTreypai^ev.— Dionys.  iii.  41.  ovtu  tIv  MdpKiov  SieOijKcv,  iLcrr^  Kal  ets  robs 
6U7raTpi5a?  Kal  els  tt/V  ^ovXrjy  W  avrov  KaTa\€xOi]vai.—  ]){o  Cass.  Fra<''m, 
xxii.  1,  Pairesc.  i  Suet.  Oct.  2. 

2  Riim.    Alterth.    ii.   i.   148,  Anni.  324;   of.  Puibino,  S.  197,  Anm.,  who 
adopts  the  ordinar}'  punctuation. 

3  S.  148,  Anm.  323.  4  ^ii,,  j^^  4^ 


306 


IIISTOEY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   ROME. 


BECKERS   VIEW   OF   ROMAN   NOBLES. 


307 


founded  on  a  passage  of  Dionysius,  who  says  that  the  Romans 
thon^rht  proper  to  raise  Servius  by  their  votes  from  the  plebeian 
into  the  patrician  order ;  as  they  had  before  done  with  Tarciuinins 
Prisons,  and  before  him  with  Kuma  Pompilius.^  But  Dionysius, 
as  is  often  the  case,  here  contradicts  himself :  for  ho  had  before 
said  that  Tarquin  was  made  a  patrician  by  Iving  Ancus,  and  not 

by  the  people.^ 

Becker,  following  up  his  idea  that  there  were  in  the  early  popu- 
lation nobles  who  were  not  patricians,  asks  how  the  patricians 
could  assert  that  they  only  had  gentes  ;  an  assertion  that  was  only 
possible  as  opposed  to  the  plebeians,  because  these  were  not  in- 
cluded in  the  curiae,  and  the  (jente^  were  in  the  curia^.^ 

To  this  it  may  be  answered  that,  even  if  there  were  nobles  in  the 
Eomulean  population  who  were  not  patricians,  which  is  the  height 
of  improbability,  still  that  alone  would  not  give  them  gentez  ;  be- 
cause the  gentes,  as  we  have  shown,  were  a  political  institution  of 
Romulus.     Tarquin  was  a  noble  before  he  came  to  Rome ;  but  that 
did  not  make  him  and  his  family  a  Roman  gens  before  they  were 
constituted  into  one.      The  family  or  families  at  the  head  of  a 
gens  were  no  doubt   patrician;    and,  though  they  had   plebeian 
gentiles,  the  former  only  could  properly  be  said  "  habere  gentcm  ; " 
because  it  was  they  who  had  the  power  of  admitting  other  clients 
into  it,  because  it  Avas  they  who  possessed  the  sacra,  &c.     Their 
clients  may  be  said  to  have  belonged  to  a  gens  :  but  they  could 
hardly  be  said  to  have  a  gens. 

In  p.  l."}0,4  Becker  says  that,  in  spite  of  all  misapprehensions, 
the  knowledge  of  the  true  meaning  of  2)atrician,  and,  along  A\^th  it, 
of  the  original  popuhcs,  has  not  altogether  perished.  Those  who 
invented  the  derivation  of  the  name  from  2^atres,  only  grammatically 
wrongly,  were  not  ignorant  that  in  the  old  times  all  ingenui,  with- 
out distinction,  were  pa^ria'i.  For  so  speaks  Decius  in  Livy  (x.  8) : 
"  En  unquani  fandi  audistis  patricios  primo  esse  factos,  non  de 
coelo  demissos,  sed  qui  patrem  ciere  possent,  id  est  nihil  ultra  quam 

^  KoX  5td  ravra  'Vwixaioi  (xku  avrbv  e'/c  tou  Zriixov  ii^rayay^lv  iri^iaxrav  ets  tovs 
irarpiKiovs,  ^ri<povs  iTreviyKavres,  k.t.X. — Lib.  IV.  3. 

2  In  the  passage  from  Lib.  iii.  41,  quoted  in  p.  304. 

3  Rom.  Alterth.  ii.  i.  149.  The  assertion  referred  to  is  the  following  : 
"  Semper  ista  audita  sunt  eadem,  penes  vos  auspicia  esse,  vos  solos  gentem 
habere,  vos  solos  justum  imperium  et  auspicium  domi  militiseque." — Liv.  x.  8. 

*  Anni.  326. 


ingenuos. 


He  then  adverts  to  passages  to  the  same  effect  in 
Dionysius  and  Plutarch,  and  especially  to  the  following  one  in 
Festus  (p.  241):  "Patricios  Ccncius  ait  in  libro  do  comitiis  eos 
appellari  solitos,  qui  nunc  ingenui  vocentur.'^ 

But  this  is  a  mere  grammatical  subtlety.  It  matters  not  whether 
Livy  and  Cicero  are  right  in  deriving  ^:)a^riVi?^s  from  paU-es,  or 
senators,  or  whether  it  did  not  rather  at  lirst  signify  any  man  who 
could  name  his  father,  that  is,  any  freeborn  man,  or  ingenmis.  The 
important  point  is,  that  it  came  by  use  to  signify  only  senatorial 
families.  Our  word  peer  m^j,  in  one  sense,  signify  any  man  what- 
soever ;  as  when  Bacon  says,  "  Amongst  a  man's  peers,  a  man  shall 
be  sure  of  familiarity ; "  but  in  a  political  sense  it  means  only  a 
nobleman.  And  therefore  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from  the  ety- 
mology of  patricius  with  regard  to  the  composition  of  the  popu  I  us  ; 
because,  on  a  political  subject,  it  must  be  used  in  its  political 
sense.  But,  in  fact,  the  passage  in  Livy,  properly  viewed,  proves  just 
the  reverse  of  what  Becker  would  have  it  to  prove.  The  argument 
of  Decius  is,  Have  you  ever  heard  that  the  Patricii  were  at  first 
made,  not  sent  down  from  heaven ;  that  they  were  nothing  more 
tlian  those  who  could  cite  a  father,  that  is,  nothing  more  than  free 
born  ?  But  this  implies  that,  after  being  made,  they  became  a  great 
deal  more  than  ingenui ;  and  therefore  that  after  the  institution  of 
the  patriciate,  it  would  be  the  grossest  of  all  errors  to  say  *'  that  all 
the  ingenui,  without  distinction,  were  patrician." 

Let  us  remark,  moreover,  that  this  passage  militates  terribly 
against  Becker's  notion  of  a  non-patrician  nobility  in  the  time  of 
Romulus.  For  it  tells  us  that  the  patricians  themselves  were  made 
from  nothing  more  than  inge^iui. 

It  remains  to  examine  some  passages  from  which  it  has  been 
inferred  that  all  the  patrician  body — that  is,  according  to  Becker 
and  his  school,  the  curiae  and  their  comitia — possessed  the  aucto- 
ritas ;  which,  therefore,  it  is  maintained,  was  not  confined  to  the 
Senate.  But  it  will  be  necessary  first  to  inquire  what  is  the  real 
value  of  some  terms. 

The  Latin  authors,  from  a  more  familiar  knowledge  of  their  own 
history  and  language — for  we  must  be  pardoned  for  thinking  that 
after  all  they  knew  more  about  these  matters  than  the  most  learned 
of  the  moderns — often  employ  words  in  what  appears  to  us  a  some- 
what equivocal  sense,  though  the  real  meaning  of  them  would  pro- 
bably be  at  once  apprehended  by  a  Roman.     Such,  for  instance,  is 

x2 


mi 


308 


IIISTOIIY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


TATJIES   AND   PATiaClI. 


the  word  CapitoUumy  wliicli,  from  its  being  used  to  signify  both 
the  whole  Capitohne  Hill,  and  also  only  that  part  of  it  more  pro- 
perly called  the  "  Capitol,"  has  introduced  a  vast  deal  of  confusion 
into  our  ideas  of  lioman  topography,  though  probably  it  would 
not  have  puzzled  a  lioman  for  a  moment.  The  same  remark 
applies  to  the  words  patres  and  pab^icii.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted 
that  the  word  patres  originally  designated  the  members  of  the 
Senate ;  and  some  modern  critics,  like  Eubino,^  have  maintained 
that  it  never  means  anything  else.  Ihit  Becker  has  shown 
that  it  must  also  have  been  used  of  the  Avhole  patrician  body;- 
and,  therefore,  in  some  cases,  ^)rt^/vs  is  equivalent  to  ^)rtfrim. 
Eecker,  however,  though  he  establishes  that  ^x(^/r5  and  ^>«^nci /  may 
mean  the  same  thing,  yet  contends  that  jxitricU  cannot  be  applied 
to  senators,  and,  indeed,  that  in  a  passage  of  Livy  which  we  are 
about  to  examine  it  is  purposely  used  by  way  of  contrast  to  sena- 
tors. And  as  in  the  same  i)assage  auct07'es  is  employed,  or  appears 
to  be  employed,  in  connexion  with  patricii,  he  draws  an  argument 
thence  in  support  of  his  view  that  the  whole  jiatrician  bod}^,  or, 
what  are  in  his  opinion  identical,  the  curii^e,  might  be  auctores. 
^nt  2^citricii  properly  means  the  whole  patrician  body,  or  the  sena- 
tors and  their  families ;  hence  it  sometimes  might  be  rendered  *'  the 
patrician  party,"  when,  in  their  contests  with  the  2'>l(^^Sj  the  senators 
and  their  connexions  act  together ;  and  in  later  times  patricii  seems 
to  be  used,  in  reference  to  the  Senate  itself,  to  signify  its  patrician 
members.  The  former  of  these  meanings,  or  ^xff ru-?'/,  as  denoting  a 
party,  is  convertible  with  noUlitaSy  and  is  sometimes  found  thus 
converted.  With  this  explanation,  it  will  perhaps  appear  that  the 
signification  of  these  terms,  though  sometimes  seemingly  obscure 
and  perplexing,  may  be  easily  determined  by  means  of  the  context. 
A  long  and  important  passage  in  Livy,  serving  to  illustrate  this 
subject,  is  adduced  by  Becker,^  who  prefaces  it  with  the  following 

1  EiJm.  Yerf.  S.  n^,  ff. 

^  Rom.  Altertli.  ii.  i.  S.  141,  ff.  The  following  passage,  which  is  not  among 
those  cited  b}-  Becker,  appears  to  us  sufficient  to  prove  his  point  :  "  Recusan- 
tibus  id  munus  a^dihbus  plcbis,  conclamatum  a  patriciis  est  juvcnibus,  se  id 
honoris  ....  libcnter  acturos,  ut  rediles  fiereut  :  quibus  cum  ab  universis, 
gi-atioe  acta3  essent,  foctum  senatus  consultum,  ut  duos  ^-iros  aidiles  ex  pat  rib  us 
dictator  populum  rogaret."— Lib.  vi.  42.  Here  it  is  the  patrician  youth,  there- 
fore certainly  not  Senators,  wlio  desire  to  be  a?diles  ;  but  the  S.  C.  designates 
them  as  "ex  patribus." 

»  Ibid.  S.  303,  Anm.  611. 


309 


remarks  :  "  If  in  a  liundred  i)laces  p(it}-es  means  the  same  as  patylrli^ 
ii  both  terms  are  used  hj  one  and  tlie  same  author  as  synonymous, 
with  what  justice  can  it  be  asserted  tliat  precisely  where  the  auc- 
toritas  patnnn  is  spoken  of,  these  Patres  must  always  without  any 
further  definition  be  taken  for  tlie  Senate,  nay,  that  even  auctores 
2mtricu  must  immediately  become  senators  !     Bui  I  shall  speak  of 
this  further  on,  and  content  myself  here  witli  further  instancing  a 
well-known  passage  of  Livy  (vi.  42),  but  which  can  never  be  sulii- 
ciently  urged.     I  here  insert  it  at  length:  ' Yixdum  perfunctum 
eum   (dictat)  bello  atrocior  domi   seditio  accepit,   et  per  ingentia 
certamina  dictator  senatusi^ue  victus,  ut  rogationes  triljuniciai  acci- 
perentur,   et   comitia  consulum,  adversa  nobilitate  habita,  (^uibus 
L.    Sextius   de   plebe   prinms   consul   factus.      Et   ne  is   quideni 
finis  certaminum    fuit.      Quia    patricii    se    auctores    futuros  nega- 
l)ant,  prope  seccssionem  jdebis  res  terribilesque  alias  minas  civi- 
lium  certaminum  venit,  cum  tamen  per  dictatorem  conditionibus 
sedatai  discordiai  sunt,  concessunKjue  ab  nobilitate  jdebi  de  consule 
plebeio,  a  plebe  nobilitati  de  prietore  uno,  qui  jus  in  urbe  diceret, 
ex  Patribus   creando.     Ita  ab   diutina  ira  tandem  in  concordiam 
redactis   ordinibus,  cuui    dignam    earn   rem  senatus  censeret  esse, 
meritoque  id,   si  <|uando  unijuam  alias,  deum  immortahum  causa 
libenter  facturos  fore,  ut  ludi  maximi  fierent,  et  dies  unus  ad  tri- 
duum  adjiceretur ;  recusantibus  id  munus  a-dilibus  plebis,  conclama- 
tum a  patriciis  est  juvenibus,  se  id  honoris   deum   immortalium 
causa  libenter  acturos,  ut  icdiles  iierent :  (juibus  cum  ab  universis 
gratico  acta3  essent,  factum  senatus  consultum,  ut  duos  viros  tediles 
ex  patri])us  dictator  populum  rogaret;    patres    auctores  omnibus 
ejus  anni  comitiis  fierent.'  " 

Becker  then  proceeds  to  remark  :   "  I  will   not  here  repeat,  what 
Niebuhr  has  rightly  characterised  as  striking,  that  the  Senate  has 
consented  to  the  election  of  a  plebeian  consul,  and  the  2)atric{aits 
withhold  thiiir  coiiiieiity  7ie(jant  se  auctores  futuros ;  nor  will  Schii- 
mann's  evasion  detain  me  long,  who  considers  that  the  patricians 
themselves  must  here  have  been  the  senators  ;  wherefore  he  assumes 
that  the  Senate  had  indeed  consented  to  the  election  of  a  plebeian, 
but  as  their  choice  fell  upon  Sextius  (which  it  was  diificult  for- 
sooth to  foresee  !)  it  revoked  its  consent :  nobody  will  easily  assent 
to  this.     I  will  only  ask  what  opinion  we  should  form   of  Livy's 
capabilities   as   a  writer,   if  we   consider  that  he  used  the   terms 
senatus,  nohilltaSj  2^(itriciij  and  jKitriSj  in  variegated  confusion  within 


i-'j  ■ 


10 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


the  compass  of  a  few  lines,  and  without  any  further  distinction, 
now  for  the  Senate,  now  again  for  the  patricians  (for  the  juvenes 
patricii,  who  are  to  be  chosen  ?ediles  ex  patnhus,  can  hardly  be  also 
senators  I) ;  I  will  only  ask  whether  it  is  not  plain  that  he  has  pur- 
posely chosen  the  terms  senatus  and  patricii  in  order  to  avoid  a 
misunderstanding.  Lastly,  with  regard  to  the  words,  ^Factum 
senatus  consultum  ut  .  .  .  patres  auctores  omnibus  ejus  anni  comitus 
fierent :'  it  would  be  beyond  measure  absurd  that  the  Senate  should 
prescribe  to  itself,  by  a  formal  senatus  consultum,  that  it  would 
give  its  consent  1  So  much  here  :  what  is  further  to  be  said  will 
be  found  in  the  sequel."  ^ 

Becker  then  resumes  his  examination  of  the  passage  at  p.  olb. 
He  is  there  endeavouring  to  prove  that  Patres  auctores  fierunt,  or 
Fatres  auctores  factl,  is  nothing  more  than  the  consent  of  the 
patricians  in  the  Comitia  Curiata.  This,  he  says  (p.  317),  may  be 
proved  in  two  ways  :  partly  by  the  testimonies  which  clearly  distin- 
guish between  the  Patres  Auctores  and  the  Senate,  and  even  name 
the  patricians  as  the  confirmers,  or  authors ;  and  partly  from  the 
original  identity  of  this  confirmation  with  the  lex  curiata  de  impeno. 
The  latter  question  we  have  already  examined ;  we  will  now  pm- 
ceed  with  the  former  of  them,  or  the  argument  from  testimonies,  m 
support  of  which  the  passage  from  Livy  in  question  is  the  principal 

cheval  de  hataille. 

''  As  regards  the  first  method  of  proof,"  continues  Becker,  "  the 
principal  passage  is  that  from  Livy,  vi.  42,  already  produced.     In 
order  to  avoid  every  false  interpretation  and  evasion,  we  must 
remember  that  it  was  precisely  L.  Sextius,  who  aimed  at  the  con- 
sulate, who  reproached  the  people  that  he  had  sacrificed  himself  as 
a  tribune  during  nine  years,  without  receiving  the  reward  which 
might  recompense  him  :   '  Qua)  munera  quando  tandem  satis  grato 
animo  a^stimaturos,  si  inter  accipiendas  de  suis  commodis  rogationes, 
spem  honoris  latoribus  earxim  incidant  T  (c.  39.)     There  could  be  no 
doubt  that  so  soon  as  ever  a  plebeian  could  be  elected,  the  choice 
would  fall  on  none  but  him.     The  Senate  after  a  long  contest 
yielded  at  last,   and  the  election  ensued  against  the  will  of  the 
nobility,  that  is,  of  the  patricians  :  *  Per  ingentia  certamina  dictator 
senatus  que  victus,  ut  rogationes  tribunicia3  acciperentur ;  et  comitia 
consulum  adversa  nobilitate  habita,  quibus  L.   Sextius   de   plebe 
primus  consul  factus '   (c.  42).     But  the  contest  was  not  yet  at  an 
end,  as  the  patricians  refused  to  confirm  the  election  :  *  Et  ne  is 


tatuEkS  and  TATRlCir. 


311 


quidem   finis   certaminum    fuit,   quia  patricii  se  auctores   futures 
negabant ; '  till  the  dictator  effected  an  agreement  by  separating  the 
judicial  power  from  the  consulate,  and  creating  a  new  office,  the 
praitorship,  for  the  nobilitf/,  that  is,  for  the  patres  :  '  Qiium  tamen 
per  dictatorem  conditionibus  sedatic  discordia;  sunt,  concessumquo 
ab  nobilitate  plebi  de  consule  plebeio,  a  plebo  uobilitati  de  prsctoro 
uno,  qui  jus  in  urbo  diceret,  ex  patribus  creando.'     For  liim  who 
does  not  recognise  herein  the  difterence  of  the  jjatres  or  pati-icii 
auctores  from  the  Senate,  for  him  especially  who  does  not  perceive 
that  in  the  whole  narrative  Livy  purposely  uses  senaim  and  patricii, 
or  pjatres,  as  antithetical,  I  have  indeed  no  further  proof.     But  let 
liim  who  will  not  recognise  this  explain  the  difhculty  which  arises, 
under    any   other    interpretation,    from   that   most    extraordinary 
senatus  consultum  :  '  Factum  senatus  consultum,  ut  duos  viros  iediles 
ex  patribus  dictator  populum  rogaret  :  patres  auctores  omnibus  ejus 
anni  comitiis  fierent:     As  already  remarked,   it  would  have  been 
quite  absurd  that  the  Senate  should  prescribe  to  itself  by  a  senatus 
consultum  that  it  should  give  its  consent ;  and  the  evasion  employed 
(by  AVachsmuth  and  Huschke),   *it  is  no  command  of  the   Senate 
directed  to  a  curial-community  independent  of  itself,  but  an  indica- 
tion or  advertisement  of  the  contents  of  the  agreement '  {Inhaltsan^ 
zei<je  des  Vergleichs\  I  do  not  understand.      If  Livy  were  speaking 
of  a  protocol  of  the  Senate,  this  might  pass ;  but  a  senatus  con- 
sultum is   always  a  resolution  that  prescribes  ('  Quod  verba  fecit 
Cos.  .  .  .  de  ea  re  quid  fieri  placeret,  de  ea  re  ita  ccnsuerunt ')  :  and 
this  lies  in  the  vfovii  fierent ;  if  only  the  inclination  of  the  Senate 
were  expressed  it  w^ould  have  been  v!viiiQn  futuros. 

"  But  as  Livy  here  expressly  calls  the  assembly  that  is  to  confirm 
patricii,  so,  a  little  before,  he  has  put  the  same  exjDlanation  into  the 
mouth  of  Appius  Claudius.  Claudius,  appealing  to  a  passage  which 
has  been  already  explained  (Liv.  vi.  41),  that  the  auspices  lay 
exclusively  with  the  patricians,  and  that  the  plebeians  had  no  share 
in  them,  says  :  '  Quidigitur  aliud  (luani  tollit  ex  civitate  auspicia,  qui 
plebeios  consults  creando  a  patribus  qui  soli  ea  habere  possunt,  avfert  'f 
.  .  .  Yulgo  ergo  pontifices,  augures,  sacrificuli  reges  creentur  :  cuilibet 
apicem  dialem,  dummodo  homo  sit,  imponamus  :  tradamus  ancilia, 
penetralia,  deos  deorumque  curam,  quibus  nefas  est.  Non  leges 
auspicato  ferantur,  non  magistratus  creentur:  nee  centuriatis,  nee 
curiatis  comitiis  patres  auctores  fia) it.  Sextius  et  Licinius,  tamquam 
llomulus  ac  Tatius  in  urbe  Eoniana  regnent,'  &c.     The  princii)al 


:-  •  ' 


312 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


meaning  of  these  words  is  not  so  mucli  that  tlie  election  of  plebeian 
consuls  would  be  the  destruction  of  the  auspices,  and  therefore 
would  have  for  its  result  that  there  would  be  no  more  mictores 
comitiornm :   rather  Claudius    says   Avith   bitter   irony  :    '  Now,  let 
everything  be  profaned ;  let  the  auspices  be  neglected,  the  priestly 
dignities  desecrated ;  let  no  more  elections  of  magistrates,  no  more 
laws  be  made  under  the  sanction  of  the  auspices ;  let  the  Patres  no 
longer  be  Auctores  of  the  Comitia ;  may  the  plebeians  Sextius  and 
Licinius  tyrannize  over  Itome  : '  that  means,  in  short,  may  all  the 
sacred  privileges  of  the  patricians  be  done  away  with,  since  it  is 
only  plebeians  and  patricians  that  are  here  opposed  ;  the  Senate  by 
itself  does  not  come  into  question.     And  thus  has  the  author  of 
the  speech  Pro  Domo  quite  correctly  conceived  the  matter  when 
he  demonstrates  what  would  be  the  result  if  any  patrician  could  at 
his  own  will  go  over  to  the  plebeian  order  (cap.  14)  :  '  Ita  populus 
Eomanus  neque  regem  sacrorum,  neque  flaminem,  nee  Salios  habebit, 
necexparte  dimidia  reliquos  sacerdotes  ;  neque  auctores  centuriatorum 
et  curiatorum   comitiornm:    auspicia(iue  populi  liomani,   si   magi- 
stratus  patricii  creati  non  sint,  intereant  necesse  est,  cum  interrex 
nullus  sit ;  quod  et  ipsum  patricium  esse,  et  a  patricio  prodi  necesse 
est : '  only  that  here  the  auctores  centuriatorum  et  curiatorum  comi- 
tiornm are  nothing  but  a  declamatory  phrase,  probably  taken  innne- 
diately  from  the,  at  all  events,  very  similar  speech  of  Claudius  in 
Livy,  without  regard  whether  there  were  any  actual  Curiate  Comitia 
in  the  time  of  Cicero.     But  this  much  is  certain  that  the  autlior,  by 
auctores  comitiorum^  meant  not  the  Senate,  but  the  patricians." 

The  passage  of  Livy  here  discussed  is  no  doubt  a  very  difficult 
and  important  one,  and  we  have  therefore  given  it,  with  Becker's 
commentary,  at  full  length.  To  those  who  have  already  made  up 
their  minds  that  patres  auctores  fieri  is  identical  with  a  lex  curiatci 
the  passage  must  appear  decisive ;  but  as  we  have  endeavoured  to 
show  that  there  may  be  some  reason  to  demur  to  that  conclusion, 
so  we  shall  now  inquire  whether  Livy's  narrative  may  not  be 
reconciled  with  the  opposite  opinion. 

First,  then,  we  agree  with  Becker,  that  nohilitas  signifies  the  same 
thing  as  patricii  ;  only  we  would  extend  the  meaning  a  little  further 
than  he  appears  to  do,  so  as  to  include  the  patricii  who  were  in  the 
Senate.  For  when  Livy  says,  "  Concessum  ab  noUlitate  plebi  do 
consule  plebeio,"  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  this  could  be  done 
without  the  consent  of  the  Senate  :  that  the  younger  patricians. 


it 


k^ 


PATEES   AND   rATKICII. 


31 


o 


or  oven  the  Curiae  should  take  upon  themselves  so  important  an 
alteration  in  tlie  constitution  as  the  exchange  of  a  plebeian  consul 
for  a  patrician  pr;etor,  without  even  asking  the  advice  of  the 
senators.  The  nohilitas,  therefore,  or  the  ju>r?^?'iVu',  both  the 
senators  and  those  not  in  the  Senate,  are  here  acting  together  as 
a  political  party,  without  regard  to  their  official  functions.  It  is 
in  this  character  of  a  party,  including  the  senators  in  their  non- 
official  capacity  and  the  rest  of  the  patricians,  that  negotiations  are 
entered  into  with  the  leaders  of  the  plebs,  and  the  agreement  in 
question  made. 

Xow  let  us  review  the  passage  under  this  light.  The  senators 
after  a  great  struggle  are  conquered  {yicfi),  that  is,  in  fiict,  they  are 
frightened— for  they,  and  not  the  outside  patricians,  are  the  re- 
sponsible persons — not  exactly,  as  Xiebuhr  says,  into  consenting  to 
the  election  of  a  plebeian  consul,  but  that  such  comitia  should  bo 
lield.  The  non-senatorial  patricians  vi(^lently  oppose  the  measure  : 
the  senatorial  ones  repent,  and  are  carried  away  by  the  passions  of 
their  connexions  ;  and  wlien  Sextius  is  elected,  the  patrician  party 
affirm  tliat  they  will  not  accord  him  their  authority  ;  meaning,  tliat 
is,  in  the  only  way  in  which  it  could  be  accorded— through  the 
Senate.  Then  the  dictator  proposes  a  compromise :  that  the 
nobilit}^,  that  is,  as  we  liave  said,  the  patricians,  including  tlie 
Senate,  should  consent  to  appoint  a  plebeian  consul,  in  return  for  a 
patrician  prretor.  AVe  see  that  all  tliis  must  have  been  done  by 
unofficial  negotiations.  It  Avould  have  been  beneath  the  dignity  of 
the  senators  to  enter  personally  into  these.  They  would  have  been 
carried  on  by  non-senatorial  patricians,  who,  however,  speak  in  the 
name  of  their  body,  we  will  do  this,  we  will  do  that,  loe  will  give 
our  authority,  &c.  Those  who  reject  this  interpretation  are  bound 
to  show  that  patricians,  not  senators,  or  even  the  Comitia  Curiata, 
could  make  the  most  vital  changes  in  the  constitution  without  the 
consent  of  the  Senate. 

With  regard  to  the  senatus  consultum,  and  Becker's  remark  on  it, 
''  that  it  would  have  been  quite  absurd  that  the  Senate  should  pre- 
scribe to  itself  that  it  would  give  its  consent,"  we  shall  observe  that 
we  see  no  absurdity  whatever  in  a  body  of  men  saying  what  they 
w^ould  do.  On  the  other  hand,  according  to  Becker's  interpretation, 
this  senatrn  consultum  was  to  bind  the  Comitia  Curiata.  JNTow  see 
what  absurdities  arise  out  of  this.  According  to  him,  it  is  these 
Comitia  that  give  the  auctoritas  to  a  law  or  to  an  election.     It  is 


314 


HI«TOKY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  HOME. 


they  who,  according  to  his  interpretation  of  Livy,  could  give  or 
withhold  their  assent  to  measures  so  important  as  the  creation  of  a 
plebeian  consul,  or  a  patrician  praetor,  without  so  much  as  consult- 
ing the  Senate,  for  the  patricii,  he  says,  are  carefully  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  senators,  and  not  to  be  mixed  up  with  them.  Yet 
this  powerful  and  independent  body  is  to  be  bound  beforehand  by 
a  sercatas  cotmdtiim  !  If  this  was  the  case,  whatever  may  be  said 
about  the  technical  meaning  of  the  Patrum  Auctoritas,  it  is  evident 
that  the  virtual  power  of  it,  in  contradiction  of  all  Becker's 
elaborate  arguments  on  the  subject,  lay  with  the  Senate,  and  that 
the  auctoritas  of  the  curiae  was  only  the  shadow  of  a  name. 

This  seiiatus  consultum,  therefore,  rightly  viewed,  only  affords 
another  proof  that  the  "  patres  auctores  fieri "  was  the  prerogative 

of  the  Senate. 

We  must  confess  that  we  do  not  very  clearly  apprehend  the 
drift  of  the  latter  part  of  Becker's  reasoning.  But  if  he  means  to 
say  that  in  the  following  words  in  the  speech  of  Claudius,  "Xec 
centuriatis,  nee  curiatis  comitiis  patres  auctores  fiant,"  there  is  no 
allusion  to  the  Senate,  we  differ  from  him  altogether.  If  jJcUre^ 
here  means  the  patricii^  and  if  the  patricii  are  the  same  as  the 
curiaia  comitia,  then  we  have  the  absurdity  of  their  giving  their 
own  authority  to  their  own  act.  But  any  Itoman  v/ould  have 
known,  in  spite  of  the  double  meaning  of  patres^  that  when  used 
with  respect  to  the  sanctioning  of  the  Comitia,  and  with  the  ad- 
junct of  auctores,  it  could  not  mean  anything  else  but  the  senators. 
Nor  do  we  perceive,  whether  it  be  a  declamatory  phrase  or  not, 
that  the  author  of  the  speech  Pro  Domo  understood  the  formula, 
"  auctores  centuriatorum  et  curia tomm  comitiorum,"  in  any  other 
manner. 

The  array  of  authorities  which  Becker  musters  to  support  his 
interpretation  of  this  passage  of  Livy  is  very  poor  and  meagre 
indeed.  The  first  is  a  corrupt  fragment  of  Sallust,  which  we  will 
give  according  to  Becker  s  reading,  though  we  cannot  make  any 
sense  of  it  :  **  Xe  vos  ad  virilia  ilia  voceni,  quo  tribunos  plebei, 
modo  patricium  magistratum,  libera  ab  auctoribus  patriciis  sulfragia 
majores  vestri  paravere.''  On  which  Becker  observes  :  *'  "Whether 
the  speech  of  the  tribune  Liciiiius  himself  be  the  groundwork 
of  this,  or  whether  the  expression  belongs  enth-ely  to  Sallust, 
the  one  or  the  other  has  incontestably  written  patricii  de- 
signedly, in  order  to  avoid  the  term  patres^  which  in  his  time  was 


PATRES   AND   PATRICIT. 


315 


T  ■ 


inH'. 

•  ^' 

"ifcf  • 

-%  '■ 


SL 

..•■•'i 


only  customarily  used  of  the  Senate,  and  therefore  little   under- 
stood." 

The  passage,  so  far  as  we  can  make  it  out,  seems  to  refer  to  the 
transfer  of  the  elections  of  tribunes  from  the  Comitia  Curiata  to 
the  Comitia  Tributa,  the  elections  by  the  last  of  which  do  not  ap- 
pear to  have  required  the  Auctoritas  Patrum.  The  speech,  which 
according  to  some  is  that  of  the  tribune  ^I.  Le2)idus,  is  intended  to 
incite  the  jdehs  against  all  the  patricians  as  an  order.  How  un- 
founded is  Becker's  remark  that  the  author  purposely  avoids  the 
term  patres,  in  the  sense  of  patricians,  because  that  term  was  then 
only  commonly  understood  of  the  Senate,  is  shown  by  the  very 
opening  of  the  speech  :  "  Si,  Quirites,  parum  existumaretis  quid 
inter  jus  a  majoribus  relictum  vobis,  et  hoc  a  Sulla  paratum  servi- 
tium  interesset,  multis  mihi  disserendum  fuisset,  docendumque, 
quas  ob  injurias  et  quotiens  a  pairibus  armata  i)lebes  secessisset :  " 
where  ^ja^ri'6?^A*  evidently  stands  for  the  whole  patrician  body, 
and  may  be  taken  as  another  example  of  that  usage.  But  the 
short  answer  to  Becker's  criticism  is,  that  it  is  altogether  beside 
the  point.  The  passage  is  not  a  parallel  one  to  that  of  Livy, 
There  paty^icii  is  used  substantively,  whilst  in  Sallust  it  is  an  ad- 
jective. Though  we  may  say  ^^patribus  auctoribus"  by  apposition, 
yet  Sallust  could  not  have  wjitten  in  this  passage,  "libera  ab 
auctoribus  patribus  sutfragia,"  to  signify  "  free  from  patrician 
authors  : "  that  is,  free  from  the  necessity  of  being  authorized  by 
imtricians.  It  is  in  the  quality  of  patrician,  not  of  senator,  that 
the  sting  lies,  though  only  senators  could  be  auctores. 

This  very  unsatisfactory  passage  is  the  only  one,  besides  that 
from  Livy,  from  a  Latin  author,  which  Becker  adduces  in  support 
of  that  branch  of  his  argument  which  is  to  show  by  examples  that 
the  p)<^tres  auctores  may  be  separated  from  tlie  Senate,  and  that  the 
non-senatorial  patricii  may  be  designated  as  auctores.  But  he 
quotes,  in  addition,  the  following  passage  from  Dionysius  concern- 
ing the  election  of  Xuma  (ii.  GO)  :  iKKXrjaiag  ^e  fjierd  tovto  avv- 
a^OetV/js,  Iv  1]  SL7]y€yKuy  virep  avTov  ra?  }p^cfjovc  at  <^u\at  kuto.  (ppdrpu^, 
Kal  Tu)y  TrarpiKiwy  hrtKvpLJddyrojy  rd  Soi^avTU  ro)  TrXrjOa,  k.  t.  X.  The 
ih:K\r}(TLa,  or  the  cjivXat  voting  kutu  ^paVjoa?,  are  here  evidently  the 
Comitia  Curiata,  called  by  Dionysius  to  TrXrjOoQ,  and  therefore  the 
TrarpiKLOi  kicLKvpu)aavT€Q  must  be  the  Senate  ;  for  at  that  time  there 
were  only  these  two  public  assemblies  at  Kome.  But  Becker  asserts 
(p.  321)  that  Dionysius  here  means  the  non-senatorial  patricians ; 


'.-■> 


-^ 


316 


IIISTOP.Y    OF   THE    KINGS   OF    HOME. 


PATIJES   AND    PATUICII. 


317 


yet  he  allows,  at  tlic  same  time,  that  this  could  not  have  heen  liis 
opinion,  heause  it  appears  from  other  places  that  he  regarded  the 
Senate  as  the  confirming  body  (see  ii.  U,  iv.  12).  jS'ow,  as  in 
these  places  he  expressly  affirms  that  the  Senate  had  the  auctoritas, 
and  as  in  the  passage  before  quoted  he  makes  the patric'd  autliorize, 
as  well  as  in  the  following,  tovq  irarpidovg  Treicravrer  e-nrLKvpu/CTca  ti)v 
npx'n'y  ^i}(f^oy  cVereyvaj  ras  (vi.  90),  we  can  only  arrive  at  one  of 
two  conclusions  :  either  that  Dionysius  considered  that  jvitricii 
could  be  used  as  equivalent  to  senatores ;  or  that  he  did  not  know 
what  he  vms  talking  about,  and  that  therefore  his  testimony  is 
utterly  valueless. 

Becker,  indeed,  affirms  that  in  the  passage  last  quoted  (vi.  90) 
the  Avords  tovq  TrarpiKiovg  are  used  in  such  a  connexion  that  they 
cannot  possibly  be  referred  to  the  Senate,  which  has  already  con- 
ceded everything.  Eut  this  is  one  of  those  dashing  assertions 
customary  with  Becker,  founded  on  a  few  isolated  words,  without 
taking  the  trouble  to  compare  Avhat  goes  before  and  what  follows 
after,  or  relying  that  his  readers  would  not.  AVhat  the  Senate  had 
done  was  to  make  a  treaty  with  the  phhs  that  they  would  concede 
the  points  demanded;  but  this  treaty  had  still  to  be  carried  out 
and  made  into  a  law  in  tlie  regidar  constitutional  manner.  And 
that  Dionysius  by  ttcitpiklol  meant  senators  is  shown  to  demon- 
stration by  what  immediately  follows.  For  in  the  text  there  is 
only  a  comma  after  ij/ricf)ov  lirEviyKavraQ,  and  the  sentence  then  pro- 
ceeds :  lirulr)  KOL  rovTov  Trap  outwj^  (/.  e.  ruiy  TrarpiKtujv)  trvxov, 
Ehei]Qy]fTav  It i  rrjg  fDovXrjs  sTTLTpixpai,  k.  t.  A.  And  a  little  further 
on  :  \a/3o;T£S  Be  Kai  tovto  to  avyy/opiqiia  Trap  a  r^s  /SofXi/s,  k.  r.  X. 
Hence  it  appears,  first,  that  the  i^/e^*'  on  their  return  to  Eome  per- 
suaded the  2^atricii  to  confirm  their  new  magistracy  by  a  regular 
vote;  second,  when  they  had  obtained  this  they  besought  the 
Senate  (iJovXy)  to  suffer  moreover  (tVt),  and  in  addition  to  what  they 
had  just  done,  &c. ;  third,  when  they  had  obtained  this  second 
concession  also  (koI  tovto),  they  proceeded  to  choose  their  tribunes. 
All  the  concessions,  therefore,  are  obtained  fro7n  the  same  hodf/, 
which  is  called  indifferently  the  patricians  and  the  Senate. 

Becker  endeavours  (p.  321)  to  explain  away  the  first  passage  of 
Dionysius  (ii.  60)  by  the  following  "evasion."  "How  he  could 
come  to  name  the  patricians  here  is  easilf/  explained  when  we  con- 
sider that  the  source  whence  he  took  his  narrative  prohahh/  used 
he  term  2)atricii  as  equivalent  to  patres.      The  more  striking  ^^er- 


..*.- 


A- 


'1- 


:'^ 


h 


1    ■" 


haps  the  expression  was,  the  less  he  felt  himself  called  upon  to 
alter  it,  and  so  he  rendered  it  literally,  I  will  not  say  thoughtlessly, 
but  without  going  into  the  explanation  of  it ;  whilst,  where  he 
found  2Httres  anctores,  he  understood  the  expression  to  mean  Senate, 
the  only  signification  of  it  which  he  knew." 

AVe  feel  ourselves  bound  to  insert  this  "  explanation  ; "  for  though 
we  do  not  find  much  weight  in  it  ourselves,  perhaps  others  may. 
Upon  the  whole,  the  impression  left  upon  our  mind  by  this  inves- 
tigation is,  that  Dionysius  certainly  thought  i\i^t  pHdrlcU  might  be 
used  as  equivalent  to  senators.  And  if,  to  adopt  Becker's  conjec- 
ture, he  found  it  so  used  in  liis  sources,  it  is  not  impossible  that 
Livy  used  it  m  the  same  way  from  the  same  sources  in  the  passa-e 
which  we  set  out  with.  ° 

Upon  the  whole  of  this  question,  therefore,  we  must  confess  our 
opnnon  that  Becker  has  failed  by  both  methods  to  prove  his  hypo- 
thesis,  that  the   composition  of  the  curiae  was   entirely  patriciin 
without  any  plebeian  admixture ;  namely,  either  by  showing  that 
the  lex  curiata  de  imperio  was  originally  identical  with  the  patrum 
auctontas,   or  that  the  2>atres  audores  comitiorum  were  no  other 
than  these  patricians  of  the  curia3.     :Nor  do  we  think  that  his  view 
of  the  identity  of  the  patres  and  popuhis  will  derive  any  aid  from 
such  a  passage  as  the  following  of  Servius,  which  he  catches  at  in 
his  summing  up  (p.  332),  like  a  drowning  man  at  a  straw  :  ''  Ideo 
autem  Calabra,   (juod,   cum  incerta?    esseut  Calendar  aut  Idus     a 
Ilomulo  constitutum  est,  ut  ihi  patres  vel  papulm  calarentur    id 'est 
vocarentur  a  Kege  sacrificulo,"  &c.  i     Servius  is  here  giving  a  defi- 
nition of  the  Curia  Calabra,  and  there  was  nothing  that  made  it 
necessary  for  him  to  show  that  the  patres  and  pmi'^dus  were  the 
same,  admitting,  for  the  moment,  Becker's  view  that  they  were 
In  such  a  case  he  would  have  used  only  one  of  the  terms    and  by 
using  the  two  he  shows  that  he  is  distinguishing  between  th.m, 
instead  of  identifying  them  ;  either  because  he  did  not  know  which 
body  was  called,  or  because  both  might  have  been  called,  but  at 
different  times.     Macrobius,  on  the  other  hand,  says  that  it  was 
the  ;;^.6.  that  was  called-- calata,   id  est  vocata,   in  Capitolium 
plebe  juxta  curiam  Calabram."^     The   account  of  the  cuiia3   in 
Paulus  Diaconus  is  much  more  to   the   purpose :  "  (\1ria3   etiam 
nommantur  in  quibus  uniuscujusque   partis  popidi  Komani  cniid 
gentur,    quales  sunt   ha3,    in   quas   Eomulus   populum  distribuit, 
Ad  ^n.  viii.  Qr^\.  2  g^^^   .   ^^ 


*•*-■■- 


'*4. 


318 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


numero  triginta."!  Yov  lierc  vre  see  that  the  pojmlus  Tvas  not 
homogeneous,  or,  according  to  Becker,  "  entirely  patrician  Avithout 
any  plebeian  admixture ;"  for  then  it  would  have  had  no  parts  m 
its  composition.  Lastly,  we  would  request  those  who  hold  that  the 
popiiU^  was  identical  with  the  Patres,  or  patricians,  to  reconcile 
their  opinion  with  the  following  passage  :  ":N^eque  enim  ad  jus  regni 
quicquam  prater  vim  habehat  (Tarquinius)  ;  ut  qui  nee  popuhjussii, 
neque  aucioribus  Patrihus  regnaret."2  ^yhere  .the  jussus  of  the 
populus  and  the  auctoritas  of  the  Patres,  are  clearly  separated  as 
two  distinct  acts  by  two  distinct  bodies  ;  the  one  having  the  right 
technically  called  y^i^^^Tf,  the  other  the  right  auctoritatem  dare,  or 
to  authorize  ih^  jussus.  And  that  these  last  were  the  senators  has, 
we  hope,  been  shown  by  what  has  been  already  said.  To  w^hich 
passage  we  may  add  the  following,  also  from  Livy  :  "  (Servium)  non 
comUiu  hahitis,  non  per  mffraglum  populi,  non  auctorihm  Patrihus, 
muliebri  dono  occupasse  regnum  ;"3  where  it  is  impossible,  iU^opulus 
and  Patres  meant  the  same  thing,  that  he  or  any  other  writer 
should  have  used  three  phrases  to  denote  their  action,  when  one, 
or  at  most  two,  would  have  sufficed.  Also,  among  others,  the  fol- 
lowing from  Cicero  :  ''  Quce  cumj^opulo,  quceque  in  patrihus  agentur, 

modica  sunto.''* 

Schweglerhas  also  brought  forward^  several  objections  to  the 
view  that  the  curice  contained  plebeian  members,  which  it  will  be 
necessary  to  examine.     After  remarking  that  this  view  pervades  the 
whole  history  of  Dionysius,  he  proceeds :  *'It  is  nevertheless  erro- 
neous, as  it  stands  in  contradiction  to  a  number  of  incontestable 
facts.     How,  for  example,  if  plebeians  were  members  of  the  curia?, 
and  thus  stood  in  strict  community  of  worship  with  the  patricians, 
could  the  difference  of  sacra  be  alleged  as  the  chief  obstacle  to 
connuhium  between  the  two  estates  1     ('  Quam  enim  aliam  vim  con- 
nubia  promiscua  habere,  nisi  ut,  qui  natus  sit,  ignoret,  cujus  san- 
guinis, quorum  sacrorum  sit  1  dimidius  patrum  sit,  dimidius  plebis  ?' 
— Liv'.  iv.  2.)     Could  not  even  curiales  have  the  right  of  marriage 
with  one  another]" 

Such  an  objection  as  this  arises  from  a  wilful  misunderstanding 
of  the  force  of  the  word  sacra  in  the  passage  cited.  These  were  of 
various  kinds  :  as,  for  instance,  the  curire  had  their  sacra,  which 


1  P.  49(Mull.). 
*  Leg.  ill.  4. 


2  Liv.  i.  41). 

2  B.  i.  S.  622,  ir. 


3  Ibid.  47. 


'  *■*?- 


«•:*, 


pi. I 


SCHWEGLER'S  ARGUMENTS   EXAMINED.  319 

were  public,  and  the  genies  theirs,  which  were  private :  yet  it  is 
neither  of  these  kinds  that  is  pleaded  as  a  bar  to  matrimony  be- 
tween patricians  and  plebeians.  It  was  the  privilege  of  the  auguries, 
of  being  the  interpreters  between  gods  and  men,  which  constituted 
the  patricians  a  distinct  class.  Schwegler  himself  observes  more 
tlian  once,  tliat  tlie  patricians  were  a  sort  of  priesthood ;  yet,  wlien 
the  time  arrives  for  applying  his  remark,  lie  either  forgets  it  or 
Ignores  it.^ 

''  How,"  he  proceeds  to  inquire,  ''  if  there  were  plebeians  in  tlio 
curiae  could  their  confirmatory  resolution  bo  called  auctoriia.^ 
2X(trum  or  2Kifricioimm  ?  " 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  auctoritas  is  wrongly  attributeo 
to  them. 

"How  could  the  doubling  of  the  three  old  stem  tribes,  or  the 
creation  of  the  secundi  Eamnes,  Tities,  and  Luceres,  be  called  a 
duphcatio  patrum,  if  those  throe  tribes  consisted  not  of  patri- 
cians?" ^ 

We  have  shown  elsewhere  2  that  the  tribes  were  not  doubled 
that  the  secundi  Eamnes,  S,c.,  were  knights,  and  that  the  dupli^ 
catio  patrum  refers  to  the  Senate. 

-How  could  it  be  said  of  the  plebeians,  in  case  thev  were  mem- 
bers of  the  curia?,  that  they  had  no  r/entes  (Liv.  x.  8),  since  the 
gentes  were  only  organic  subdivisions  of  the  curiae  and  he  who  was 
in  a  curia  must  necessarily  belong  to  a  gens  r 

This  remark  was  made  at  a  period'when  the  plebeians  in  the 
curhT  1,ore  but  a  very  small  proportion  to  the  whole  plebeian  popu- 
lation,     ihese,  too,  were  only  attached  to  some  i.atrician  lamilv, 

'  TaVc  especially  this  passage    (li.  xiv,  §1],  S.  C30)  :    "Tlic  immrdiate 
consoquence  of  this  theory  (vi..  that  the  auspices  helcged  to  the  pat,ioia„s> 

"ct       Tk  irV^  "'"  f''*'^^  f'O'"  '^l'  tli»»«  magistracies  which  were  con- 

rc,rV'!  :  St"*'^  »»«Pieos.     Only  those  belonging  to  the  old  citizens" 

(.eajl   to  the  patncians),  "  or  to  the  State  Chm-ch,  were  esteemed  mediators  hy 

h.rth  between  the  State  and  its  gods  :  wherefore  the  pretensions  of  the  plebeians 

o  tl,e  consulate  ,v^re  continually  met  by  the  objection  that  the  State'  auspices 

belonged  only  to  the  patricians,  that  no  plebeian  had  the  auspices.     Thus  the 

possess-.on  of  the  jm  sacrorum  defined  the  possession  of  all  the  other  hi^ier 

rights,  and  especially  the  jus  magislratuum.     Another  consequence   of  this 

exclusion  was  that  no  commlium  existed  between  the  two  orders  "  &c      It 

was  wholly  on  account  of  the  auspices  that  commUum  was  forbidden  between 

patncians  and  plebeians:    "Ideoque  Hecemriros  connubium  diremisse,    ue 

incerta  prole  auspicia  tiirbarentur.  "-Liv.  iv.  6.  »  See  p  254  stqq 


320 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


schwegler's  arguments  examined. 


321 


and  could  not  properly  be  said  hahere  genUm.     Siicli  a  phrase  could 
be  used  only  of  patricians  who  stood  at  the  head  of  a  gens. 

"•  Lastly,  it  is  well  known  that  the  curice,  after  the  greater  part 
of  their  earlier  functions  were  long  since  extinct,  still  retained  as 
their  principal  business  the  care  of  the  family  affairs  of  the  patri- 
cians. Even  in  the  imperial  times  a  curiate  law  was  still  necessary 
when  a  plebeian  was  elevated  to  the  rank  of  a  patrician,  or  Avhen  a 
patrician  went  over  to  the  plebeians,  or  when  an  arrogatio  took 
place  among  the  patricians.  How  is  this  to  be  explained  if  the 
Comitia  Curiata  were  not  connected  with  a  dilierence  of  rank,  if 
they  had  not  been  originally  and  essentially  an  assembly  of  the 
patrician  estate  li " 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  all  these  functions  might  have  belonged  to 
the  Comitia  Curiata,  from  their  having  been  the  earliest  public 
assembly  at  Eome.  And  from  their  constitution  they  continued  to 
be  the  most  aristocratic  of  these  assemblies.  If  it  was  necessary 
that  an  exdasivehj  aristocratic  body  should  watch  over  those  family 
affairs,  why  was  not  this  function  assigned  to  the  Senate  1  But  the 
making  a  patrician  a  plebeian,  or  a  plebeian  a  patrician,  concerned 
both  these  estates,  and  was  therefore  best  done  in  an  assembly 
composed  of  both. 

"  But  the  internal  grounds  are  of  still  more  weight.     According 
to  the  assumption  that  the  Curiae  were  a  division  of  the  whole 
nation,  and  included  the  phhs,  the  history  of  the  development  of 
the  Koman  constitution  becomes  a  veritable  riddle,  which,  indeed, 
merely  on  account  of  this  fundamental  error,   it  became  for  Dio- 
nysius.     For  first,  in  that  case  the  patricians  would  have  had  no 
assembly  of  their  own  ;  since  the  Comitia  Tributa  were  assemblies 
of  the  i9/e/>5,  and  the  Comitia  Centuriata  assemblies  of  the  whole 
people.     But   how    can    one   really  believe    that   the  ^jo^j^/ws   of 
patricians,  which  originally  formed,  as  the  proper  body  of  citizens, 
so  strong  and  exclusive  a  whole,  and  so  abruptly  separated  in  every 
relation  from  the  ^;/e/>s,  had  not  its  own  Comitia  ]     In  what  kind 
of  Comitia,  then,  did  it  give  its  confirmation,  the  so-called  aucto- 
ritas    jKitrum   or   patriciorum,    to    the    resolutions   of    the   other 
Comitia?    In  what  assemblies  did  it  choose  the  Interreges  ;  whose 
election  in   the  time  of  the  republic,  as   appears  from  the  most 
precise    testimonies,    was    undertaken    by    the    whole    patrician 

body  ]" 

Schwec^ler  then  refers  to  these  testimonies,  as  collected  by  Becker 


"y'-M  . 

■■#■■ 


in  his  "Eomische  Alterthumer."i    They  are  the  following  :  <'(Sen- 
tentia)  qua3  patricios  coire  ad  prodendum  interregem  jubebat,"  Li  v. 
iii.  40  ;  ''  Patricii,  quum  sine  curuli  magistratu  respublica  esset,  coiere 
€t  interregem  ci-eavere"  id.  iv.  7  ;  ''Xam  coire  patricios  tribuni  pro- 
hibebant,"  ib.  43,  and,  "prohibentibus  tribunisj^a^r/aos  coire  ad  pro- 
dendum interregem^''  ib.,  ''  (Ut)  nos  quoque  ipsi  {i.  e.^mtricii)  sine  suf- 
fragio  populi  auspicato  regem  i:>rodamus,"  id.  vi.  41  ;  '*(Quum  Pom- 
peius  et  Munatius)  referri  ad  senatum  de  patriciis  convocandis,  qui 
interregem  proderent,  non  essent  passi,"  Ascon.  in  Mil.  p.  32.     Or, 
that  is,  Propose  a  senatus  considtum,  that  the  patricians  should  be 
assembled  to  name  an  Interrex.    "  Hence,"  continues  Becker,  *'  what 
Appian  says  about  Sulla  is  quite  right  :  rfi  II  povXfj  TrpoaeTaUv 
eXea-Oai  ray  Mctq^v  ftaaiXia^  -  and  applicable  to  every  period,    as 
the  senatus  consultum  must  first  be  passed.     And  thus  Dionysius 
says  :   tov  te  /^ecro/3ao-tXca  Trpox^ipKjOrjvai — exPrjffiiaai'Tu,  xl.  49." 

^ow,  it  is  most  extraordinary  if,  as  Schwegler  and  Becker  think, 
the  Comitia  Curiata  were  composed  of  patricians,  and  consequently 
therefore  that  the  terms  2yat7'icii  and  comitia  curiata  were  equivalent, 
that  in  none  of  the  passages  adduced  do  we  find  the  latter  phrase 
employed,  but  only  the  word  j^citricii.  One  would  think  that, 
merely  for  the  sake  of  variety,  if  the  Interreges  were  really  elected 
in  the  Comitia  Curiata,  that  assembly  would  have  been  named  as 
the  electors.  But  no  :  not  even  when  the  form  jmtricios  coire  is 
repeated  within  five  lines,  as  in  Livy  (iv.  43),  is  any  change  made, 
and  in  Livy  (vi,  4:l),populus  is  expressly  distinguished  ivomjmtricii. 
These  passages,  therefore,  instead  of  showing  that  the  Interreges 
were  chosen  in  the  Comitia  Curiata,  afford  the  strongest  possible 
ground  for  inferring  that  they  were  not  so  chosen  ;  but  in  an 
assembly  of  patricians  specially  summoned  for  the  purpose. 

The  objection  that  if  the  Comitia  Curiata  were  not  composed  of 
patricians  that  body  would  have  had  no  assembly  of  its  own,  is  un- 
founded. They  had  the  Senate.  The  objection  about  the  Auctoritas 
Patrum  has  been  already  answered. 

"Moreover,"  continues  Schwegler,  "if  the  2')^ebs  could  vote  in 
the  Comitia  Curiata,  it  had  the  majority  in  them,  as  the  votes  were 
taken  by  the  head.  But  this  agrees  not  with  all  that  we  know  re- 
specting the  constitutional  position  of  iha  plehs  in  the  most  ancient 
times.  It  would  have  been  a  real  political  suicide  on  the  part  of 
the  patricians  if  they  had  admitted  the  populations  of  the  neigh- 


1  B.  ii.  S.  299,  Aiim.  610. 


^  B.  Civ.  i.  98. 


322 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   ROME. 


SCHWEGLEU'S   ARGUMENTS   EXAMINED. 


323 


bouring  towns  which  they  had  conquered  to  an  equality  of  voting 
in  the  assembly  of  the  people." 

That  i\iQplehs  had  the  majority  under  the  earliest  or  Komulean 
constitution  we  have  already  seen  from  the  court  paid  to  them  by 
Tarquinius  Priscus  when  canvassing  for  the  throne.  But  this  was 
the  original  plebs,  and  not  the  populations  of  the  conquered  towns ; 
which,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  the  Albans,  were  not  admitted 

into  the  curiie. 

"  On  the  assumption  in  question,"  proceeds  Schwegler,  "  the 
Servian  constitution  becomes  incomprehensible.    If  Servius  Tullius 
transferred  the  functions  of  the  Comitia  Curiata,  in  which  the  votes 
were  given  by  the  head,  and  in  which  consequently  the  plebs  had 
the  majority,  to  the  Comitia  Centuriata,  in  which  the  vote  was 
measured  by  property,  and  the  preponderance  was  to  all  appearance 
in   favour   of    the    patricians,    then    this    entire    reform   was    m 
favour  of  the  patricians  and  against  the  plebs,  and  Servius  Tullius 
only  curtailed  the  political  rights  of  tlie  plebs.     But  how  does  the 
traditional  portrait  of  this  king  agree  with  this  view  ]     How  in 
this  case  can  we  explain  the  devotion  of  the  people  to  him  "i     Or 
the  hatred  of  the  patricians  towards  him,  of  which  Dionysius  says 
so  much  ?     And  how  can  it  be  believed  that  Servius  Tullius  intro- 
duced a  constitution  through  which,  as  he  must  have  foreseen,  the 
influence  of  his  adversaries  would  be  increased  and  that  of  his  own 
party  weakened  ?     Lastly,  by  the  assumption  in  question,  the  rise 
of  the  Comitia  Tributa  also  becomes  enigmatical.     If  the  plebeians 
had  the  majority  in  the  Comitia  Curiata,  what  need  had  they  of 
that  new  kind  of  public  assembly  1     Why  did  not  the  tribunes 
cite  the  plebs  according   to   their   curice  ]      And  as   the  Comitia 
Tributa,  after  they  had  ceased  to  be  assemblies  of  the  plebeian 
estate,  also  became  national  assemblies  without  a  census,  just  like 
(according  to  the  assumption  in  question)  the  Comitia  Curiata,  there 
would  have  existed  by  the  side  of  one  another  two  Comitia  com- 
pletely  alike,— a  useless   multiplication   of    constitutional  forms 
which  we  cannot  credit  of  the  Komans." 

"  On  all  these  grounds  we  must  hold  to  the  opinion  that  the 
Curiae  in  ancient  times  were  only  a  division  of  the  patrician 
citiiens,  or  populus,  and  that  only  patricians  had  the  right  of 
voting  in  the  Comitia  Curiata." 

All  the  questions  here  raised  arise  only  from  a  misunderstanding 
of  the  nature  of  the  ancient  curiae.     They  contained  both  patricians 


s./ 


■-*. 


and  plebeians,  but  of  the  latter  only  a  limited  number,  the  de- 
scendants of  the  ancient  Romulean  population,  with  the  addition 
perhaps  of  some  Albans.  But  beyond  these  had  sprung  up,  as  we 
have  already  shown,  a  vast  plebeian  population,  chiefly  from  the 
conquered  Latin  towns,  but  also  through  those  means  of  natural 
increase,  by  settlement,  &c.,  which  take  place  in  every  city.  It 
was  by  enfranchising  these  that  Servius  became  unpopular  with 
the  patricians  and  the  idol  of  the  j^lebs.  JN'umbers  of  the  plebeians 
thus  enfranchised  were  no  doubt  persons  of  property — for  Komo 
had  now  entered  upon  a  commercial  career — and  thus  money  was 
admitted  to  share  the  privileges  which  before  had  belonged  only  to 
birth.  And  thus  it  was  that  Servius  incurred  the  hatred  of  the 
patricians  and  won  the  love  of  the  plebeians.  For  by  his  consti- 
tution every  plebeian  of  moderate  property  obtained  a  vote,  and 
even  to  the  lowest  order  of  proletarians  was  assigned  the  casting 
vote  when  those  of  the  other  centuries  were  equally  balanced. 

Schwegler  then  proceeds  as  follows  :  "  When  the  defenders  of 
the  opposite  view  appeal  to  '  the  testimony  of  the  ancients '  and  to 
*  tradition,'  we  may  remark  that  testimony  and  tradition  can,  strictly 
speaking,  be  cited  only  when  we  have  before  us  the  relation  of  a 
contemporary  concerning  things  of  which  he  might  have  had  a 
trustworthy  knowledge.  It  is  quite  a  different  thing  when  an 
historian,  as  for  example  in  a  history  of  law,  undertakes  to  repre- 
sent the  legal  constitutions  of  a  time  long  since  passed,  of  which 
only  a  slight  knowledge  remains  ;  as,  for  instance,  if  such  an 
historian  should  at  the  present  day  undertake  to  describe  the 
political  relations  of  the  Carlovingian  or  Ilohenstaufen  period. 
Such  a  representation,  in  which,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  thing 
a  great  deal  must  be  mere  combination  and  reflection,  is  plainly 
to  be  distinguished  from  immediate  and  contemporary  testimony. 
This  remark  applies  accurately  to  those  authors  of  the  Augustan 
period  who  have  written  concerning  the  laws  and  constitution  of 
that  of  Eomulus.  "VVe  may  always  ask  about  their  accounts  :  Are 
they  derived  immediately  from  the  best  and  oldest  sources  1  or  are 
they  mere  inference  and  reflection?  That  the  latter  is  to  be  assumed 
of  their  assertions  and  representations  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
Curiee,  the  Auctoritas  Patrum,  &c.,  is  certain.  In  the  oldest  histo- 
rical sources,  or  annals,  only  the  events  of  each  year  were  set  down ; 
the  political  institutions  were  not  described.  AVhen  the  author  of 
such  a  chronicle  recorded  a  confirmatory  resolution  of  the  curiae 

Y  2 


K^^'x- 


■^ 


324 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KIXGS   OF   HOME. 


schwegler's  arguments  examined. 


325 


ani  wrote  '  Patres  auctores  facti,'  it  did  not  occur  to  him  to  explain 
this  expression,  because  he  presumed  that  it  was  understood,  and 
thought  not  of  the  possibility  that  at  some  time  or  other  it  might 
be  misunderstood,  as  happened  not  only  to  Dionysius,  but  also  to 
Livy.  Hence,  when  the  historians  give  us  representations  sup- 
ported by  reasoning,  or  describe  in  detail  historical  occurrences,  Ave 
must  take  good  care  not  to  give  to  their  assertions  the  value  of 
documentary  evidence.  This  applies  particularly  to  Dionysius,  who 
as  a  foreigner  describing  the  long  past  constitution  of  another 
people  can  plainly  have  no  pretensions  to  the  presumption  of 
having  never  gone  wrong,  of  having  never  erroneously  apprehended 
any  legal  or  constitutional  institute  of  the  earliest  period.  His 
history  is  not  to  be  differently  estimated  from  the  history  of  a 
foreigner,  say  of  a  Frenchman,  who  should  now  undertake  to  ex- 
plain the  public  legal  relations  of  Germany  in  the  Middle  Ages  from 
German  sources,  and  who  should  interweave  in  his  representation, 
as  Dionysius  has  done,  long  reflections,  but  make  no  distinction 
between  these  reflections  and  what  he  finds  in  the  sources.  Who 
would  maintain  that  the  foreigner  has  nowhere  misunderstood  the 
ancient  legal  expressions  of  the  documents,  never  made  a  false 
combination  1 

"Now  properly  it  is  only  Dionysius  who  precisely  certifies  that 
the  plebs  were  members  of  the  curiae,  and  had  a  vote  in  the  Comitia 
Curiata.^    He  relates,  for  example  (ii.  7),  that  immediately  after  the 
foundation  of  the  city  Romulus  divided  the  whole  population  into 
three  tribes  and  thirty  curiae.     But  this  assertion  is  demonstrably 
a  false  reflection :  for  in  that  case,  as  indeed  Dionysius  expressly 
says,  the   Sabines,  after  their  incorporation,  must  have  been  dis- 
tributed among  the  tribes  and  curiae  which  already  existed  :  which 
for  many  reasons  could  not  have  been  the  case.     As  in  this,  so  also 
in  numberless  other  places,  Dionysius  gives  as  a  fact  and  a  real 
occurrence,  what  in  truth  is  only  his  own  subjective  representations 
of  the  occurrences,  derived  from  pure  abstraction.     Thus,  for  ex- 
ample, he  represents  almost  regularly  the  inhabitants  of  conquered 
towns  as  distributed  among  the  tribes  and  curiae  of  the  old  citizens. 
But  it  must  not  be  thought  that  these  accounts  rest  on  actual 
tradition,  or  are  derived  from  documentary  sources.     From  what 
should  they  be  derived  ?     From  chronicles  or  legal  documents  of 

1  And  besides  him,  Aurel.  Vict.  De  Vir  111.  ii.  12,   *•  (Romulus)  plebem  in 


■  '  til 


triginta  curias  distribuit. 


the  regal  period  ?  No  written  line  of  the  epoch  of  the  kings  lay 
before  even  the  oldest  annalists,  much  less  before  a  contemporary 
of  Augustus.  Or  from  the  histories  of  the  Annalists  ]  But  these, 
as  Dionysius  himself  says,  were  merely  summary  records  of  the 
most  important  events.  These  accounts  tlierefore  are  nothing  but 
arbitrary  descriptions  of  Dionysius;  they  only  prove  that^tliis 
historian  has  very  consistently  pursued  through  his  whole  work 
the  erroneous  theory  which  he  had  fancied  for  himself  concerning 
the  curiae." 

A  stranger  piece  of  criticism  than  the  preceding  we  have  scarcely 
ever  perused.     From  what  did  Schwegler  derive  his  own  opinion, 
which  he  so  confidently  asserts,  that  all  the  members  of  the  curia^ 
were  patricians,  and  that  their  confirmatory  vote  was  the  Auctoritas 
Patrum  ?     AVhence  could  he  have  formed  it  except  by  inference 
from  passages  of  those  ancient  authors  that  have  come  down  to  us? 
For  he  pretends  not  to  set  against  the  assertion  of  Dionysius,  that 
the  curiae  contained  plebeians,  any  counter-assertion,  that  they  were 
composed  exclusively  of  patricians.     And  are  we  to  assume  that 
Schwegler  and  his  brother  critics  are  more  capable  of  making,  from 
the  present  wreck   of   Latin  literature,   sounder   inductions   than 
could  be  made  by  Livy,  or  Cicero,  or  even  Dionysius,  when  that 
literature  was  in  a  perfect  state,  and  a  hundred-fold  more  ample 
than  we  now  possess  it  ?     Putting  aside,  however,  the  direct  testi- 
mony of  Dionysius  and  of  Aurelius  Victor,  Avhich  we  are  content 
to  do,  though  on  this  occasion  we  believe  them  to  be  right,  the 
question  whether  the  curiae  were  wholly  patrician,  or  patrician  and 
plebeian,  must  be  decided  by  inferences  from  the  best  authorities. 
These  we   have  already  examined,  and  by  the   conclusion  to   be 
drawn  from  them  we  are  willing  to  abide. 

We  shall  not  here  reopen  the  question  of  the  sources  of  Ptoman 
history,  which  we  have  discussed  in  another  place,  and  will  only 
remark  that  our  silence  is  not  to  be  construed  into  assent  to  what 
Schwegler  says  on  the  subject.  With  much  of  what  that  writer 
observes  about  Dionysius  we  entirely  agree ;  but  the  mistakes  of 
this  '' foreigner,"  who  lived  at  Pome  in  the  palmy  days  of  Poman 
literature,  might  well  teach  us  moderns,  who  are  living  two 
thousand  years  later,  a  little  caution  and  modesty,  and  lead  us  not 
too  hastily  to  accuse  such  writers  as  Livy  and  Cicero  of  "  misunder- 
standing "  some  of  the  most  important  parts  of  the  constitution  of 
their  country. 


1... 


326 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   ROME. 


SCHWEGLEIl  S    ARGUMENTS   EXAMINED. 


327 


Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  examine^  what  lie  calls  'Hlie  origin 
of   the  ?>Ze65;"  a   most   singular   expression,  since   it   is   almost 
impossible  to  conceive  of  a  state  that  in  its  origin  should  have 
consisted  of   nothing  but   patricians,  that   is   to  say,  of   nobles. 
"  Concernincr  the  origin  of  the  j^lehs^  he  observes,  "the  ancients 
leave   us  wShout   any  explanation.      They  tacitly  represent   the 
Eoman  nation  to  have  consisted  from  the  beginning  of  patricians 
and  plebeians,  but  take  no  account  of  the  origin  of  this  difference 
of  rank ;  with  the  exception  indeed  of  Dionysius,  who  attributes 
it   perversely  enough,  to  a  legislative  act  of  Komulus.     On  this 
question,  therefore,  we  are  entirely  confined  ^to  conjectures,  among 
which  the  following  most  recommends  itself." 

On  this  we  may  remark  that  it  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the 
world  that  the  ancient  writers  should  give  no  account  of  the  origin 
of  the  plehs,  that  is,  of  the  people  ;  the  wonder  would  have  been  if 
they  had  done  so.  It  is  only  the  higher  orders  of  the  state,  the  nobles, 
priesthood,  &c.  who  are  created  by  a  political  act,  and  whose  origin 
therefore  can  be  ascertained ;  that  is,  in  so  far  as  they  are  distin- 
guished from  the  mass  of  the  people  by  certain  privileges  and 
honours.     Kow,  to  say  that  the  origin  of  this  difference  of  rank  at 
Eome  is  mentioned  only  by  Dionysius  is  one  of  the  boldest  and  most 
absurd  statements  that  ever  was  made  :  for  both  Livy^  and  Cicero  ^ 
mention  the  creation  of  the  patricians  by  Romulus.    And  from  whom 
were  they  created  but  plebeians  ?    Consequently  there  must  have 
remained  a  mass  of  plebeians  not  so  distinguished,  as  the  ancient 
writers,  as  well  as  common  sense,  tacitly  assume.      Yet  though 
Schwegler  allows  that  these  writers  assume  a  ^^^c^s  from  the  very 
origin  of  the  city,  yet  he  considers  himself  driven  to  conjecture 

how  it  arose ! 

We  shall  refrain  from  following  him  through  the  five  or  six  pages 
in  which  he  pursues  his  conjecture.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that  it  is 
nothing  else  but  that  of  Niebuhr,  that  the  Roman  plehs  first  arose 
out  of  the  populations  of  the  Latin  cities  transferred  to  Rome.  But 
though  a  large  body  oijjlehs,  unenfranchised  till  the  time  of  Scrvius 
TuUius,  no  doubt  arose  in  this  manner,  yet  there  previously  existed, 
from  the  time  of  Romulus,  a  plebs  that  enjoyed  the  franchise  and 
voted  in  the  Comitia  Curiata. 

Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  consider  the  subject  of  the  Fatres,^ 
as  follows  :  "The  acquisition  of  a  subject  territory,  or  the  addition 

1  Buch  xiv.  §  9.  2  Lib.  i.  8.        »  Di  Rep.  ii.  8.        *  B.  xiv.  s.  10. 


^j 


I." 


of  a  2^lebsj  was  naturally  not  without  influence  on  the  form  of  the 
Roman  constitutional  relations.  The  first  result  was  that  the 
ancient  body  of  citizens  acquired  the  position  of  a  privileged  estate 
with  regard  to  the  new  citizens.  The  fathers  of  families  (paires) 
belonging  to  the  old  citizens  now  formed  a  sort  of  nobility  in  rela- 
tion to  the  plebs;  and  as,  according  to  the  constitutional  view  of 
the  ruling  estate,  there  were  no  families  according  to  the  sense  of 
the  word  in  Roman  law,  that  is  to  say,  paires  familias,  with  all  the 
rights  belonging  to  a  Roman  family,  except  in  the  body  of  the  old 
citizens — for  plebeians,  so  far  as  they  participated  not  in  family 
rights  as  defined  by  public  law,  were  not  patres  familias  in  the  legal 
Roman  sense  of  the  word — so  henceforward  the  name  patres  became 
a  distinguishing  and  honourable  appellation  for  the  heads  of  families 
belonging  to  the  old  body  of  citizens,  and  in  general  for  their 
relations.  The  knowledge  of  this  fact — namely,  that  the  patricians 
did  not  originally  form  an  estate  of  nobles,  but  became  so  only 
in  process  of  time — was  preserved  till  the  times  of  the  historical 
writers  and  antiquaries. 

"  In  later  language,  at  the  time  when  the  patriciate  had  long  lost 
its  political  meaning,  the  expression  Patres  is  the  usual  title  of  honour 
for  the  Senate.  This  has  occasioned  the  writers  and  antiquaries  of 
that  epoch  to  assume  the  same  of  the  most  ancient  period,  and  not 
only  to  explain  the  name  oi  paires  according  to  this  assumption,  but 
also  to  deduce  the  historical  origin  of  the  patriciate  from  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  most  ancient  Senate.  The  senators  elected  by  Romulus 
were,  we  are  frequently  told,  called  Patres^  and  their  descendants 
Patricii.  But,  not  to  mention  that  this  explanation  of  the  term 
2'jatricius  is  destitute  of  all  grammatical  foundation,  the  word  2^aircs 
according  to  the  usage  of  ancient  times — as  shown  by  numerous 
passages  of  the  historians,  and  particularly  by  the  legal  forms  handed 
down  from  the  time  of  the  struggle  between  the  two  orders — signifies 
predominantly  not  the  Senate,  but  the  whole  patrician  body;  while 
on  the  other  hand  there  is  wanting  a  correspondingly  old  and  certain 
attestation  that  Paires  was  originally  the  technical  name  for  the 
Senate.  The  right  notion  of  the  original  relation  between  the 
Senate  and  the  patriciate  was  never  entirely  lost  among  the  Romans. 
Dionysius,  for  example  (ii.  8,  12),  who  expressly  appeals  to  the 
most  trustworthy  Roman  authors  in  support  of  his  account,  repre- 
sents the  population  of  Rome  as  first  divided  into  nobles,  or  patres^ 
and  commonalty  or  plebeians,  and  afterwards  the  Senate  elected 


:'^ 


"■■* 


328 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


SCHWEGLERS   ARGUMENTS   EXAMINED. 


829 


from  among  the  first  of  these  estates.  This  assertion  cannot  of 
course  have  the  vahie  of  an  liistorical  testimony — in  a  question  like 
the  present  such  a  thing  cannot  be  expected — but  it  may  be  taken 
as  a  correct  inference." 

It  is  curious  to  observe  here  how,  in  the  compass  of  a  single 
page,  the  value  of  authorities,  and  even  of  the  sa7ne  authorities, 
varies,  according  as  they  are  supposed  to  support  or  contravene  the 
writer's  opinion.  First  we  are  told  that  *'  the  historical  writers  and 
antiquaries,"  such,  we  suppose,  as  Cicero  and  Yarro,  Livy  and 
Yerrius  Flaccus,  knew  that  "  the  patricians  did  not  originally  form 
an  estate  of  nobles."  And  a  little  further  on  :  "  The  right  notion 
of  the  original  relation  between  the  Senate  and  the  patriciate  was 
never  entirely  lost  among  the  Eomans."  Yet  we  are  told,  almost 
in  the  same  breath,  that  these  writers  and  antiquaries  of  a  later 
epoch  were  mistaken  in  their  explanations  of  the  origin  of  the 
patriciate  and  Senate,  because  they  interpreted  the  word  patres  ac- 
cording to  the  meaning  which  it  bore  in  their  own  times  !  That  is 
to  say,  they  were  ignorant  of  a  matter  the  knowledge  of  which,  as 
we  are  told  twice  over,  had  been  preserved  down  to  their  times  ! 

Schwegler's  argument  that  the  term  patres  became  only  in  process 
of  time  a  title  of  honour  for  the  heads  of  families  among  the  old 
citizens,  and  that  originally  all  ingenui  were  imtiHcii^  is  taken  from 
Becker,  1  and  has  been  already  examined ;  together  with  the  passages 
(Liv.  X.  8,  and  Festus,  p.  241,  Patricios)  by  which  it  is  pretended 
to  be  supported.  We  have  shown  that  Livy's  meaning  has  been 
completely  misunderstood ;  and  indeed  the  opinion  attributed  to 
him  is  directly  contrary  to  what  he  tells  us  in  another  place  ^  re- 
specting the  origin  of  the  patricians.  Are  we  then  to  set  a  passage 
in  Festus  containing  a  vague  extract  from  Cincius  against  the 
express  testimony  of  this  historian,  as  well  as  that  of  Cicero  (De 
Rep.  ii.  8,  12),  Paterculus  (i.  8,  6),  Sallust  (Cat.  6),  Eutropius  (i.  2), 
Zonaras  (vii.  3),  who  are  cited  here  by  Schwegler  himself  as  vouchers 
to  the  contrary  of  what  he  asserts  ?  and  to  whom,  according  to  his 
own  admission,  a  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  the  patricians  had 
come  down  ?  And  can  we  not  set  against  this  vague  testimony  of 
Festus  the  more  precise  one  of  Paulus  Diaconus,  that  it  was  the 
senators  who  were  called /a^Aer.s  1^     At  the  same  time  we  mean  not 

'  Rom.  Alterth.  ii.  i.  150.     See  above,  p.  306  seq.  ^  Lib.  i.  8. 

^  "  Patres  scuatores  idee  appellati  sunt,  quia  agrorum  partes  attribuerunt 
enuoribus  ac  si  liberis  propriis. " — P.  247. 


^ 


Ef?' 


to  deny  that  the  privilege  enjoyed  by  the  Romulean  2'>^€bs  of  voting 
in  the  curia?  placed  them  a  great  deal  above  the  subsequent  plebs. 
All  we  assert  is  that  it  made  them  not  patricians. 

There  is  no  force  in  the  observation  that  the  term  pabncius,  as 
applied  to  the  descendants  of  the  patres,  is  destitute  of  all  gram- 
matical foundation.  On  this  subject  Schwegler  remarks  (S.  635, 
Anm.  3)  :  ''  The  derivative  suffix  iciiis  signifies  not  physical  descent, 
but  the  idea  of  belonging  to  some  stock  or  body  (die  Zugehijrijkeit 
ztc  einem  Stammherjriff),  as  tribunicius,  novicius,  gentilicius,  adven- 
ticius,  adscripticius,  &c.  Thus  2)atricius  has  the  same  relation  to 
patres  as  plebeius  to  plebs.''  Well,  be  it  so  ;  and  what  more  can  we 
require  ?  The  Romans  did  not  want  to  express  physical  descent, 
but  political  descent,  or  rather  relationship.  The  patres  were  an 
order  just  as  the  plebs  were  an  order ;  and  therefore  if  patricius 
answers  to  p)lebeius,  it  is  exactly  what  we  expect  of  the  word.  So 
we  find  at  Rome  a  temple  of  Pudicitia  Patricia,  and  another  of 
Pudicitia  Plebeia. 

That  the  word  patres  signifies  sometimes  only  the  Senate  and 
sometimes  the  whole  body  of  patricians,  we  have  already  allowed ; 
but  both  meanings  stand  on  equally  good  authority.  The  catching 
at  the  testimony  of  Dionysius,  an  author  whom,  only  a  few  pages 
before,  Schwegler  has  most  justly  abused,  is  noteworthy.  We  have 
already  adverted  to  the  passage  here  cited  as  remarkable  for  its 
absurdity,!  and  shall  only  further  observe  that,  if  it  is  to  be  taken 
at  all,  it  must  be  taken  as  a  whole.  And  then  what  does  it  show  1 
Why,  that  from  the  very  beginning  there  were  at  Rome  two  orders, 
patrician  and  plebeian ;  the  very  thing  that  Schwegler  has  been 
labouring  to  disprove. 

On  Schwegler's  next  section  (11),  in  which  he  examines  the  dis- 
tinctive rights  of  the  patricians  and  plebeians,  we  have  no  remarks 
to  make,  except  that,  as  usual,  he  confounds  the  patricians  with 
the  original  body  of  citizens.  In  the  12th  section  he  enters  upon 
the  subject  of  patron  and  client.     We  give  his  remarks  at  length. 

^  "  There  is  a  third  portion  of  the  oldest  Roman  population,  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  patricians  and  the  plebs,  though  closely  con- 
nected with  the  former,  the  class  of  clients. 

"  The  origin  of  clientship  is  more  ancient  than  the  origin  of  the 
plebs;  for  there  was  a  time  when  the  Roman  nation  consisted  only 
of  patricians  and  clients.     In  its  nature,  clientship  was  a  condition 

^  Above,  p.  .304. 


.  ■'iil'r 


Kl 


330 


HTSTORY   OF  THE   KINGS  OF  ROME. 


of  personal  dependence  ;  the  clients  were  not,  like  the  pleha,  subject 
as  a  body  to  the  ruling  class  of  citizens,  but  were  distributed  among 
the  different  patrician  races,  and  every  client  belonged  to  the  gem 

of  his  patron. 

''Dionysius   describes   more   particularly    (ii.    10)   the   relation 
between  patron  and  client  as  analogous  to  that  between  father  and 
children,  relation  of  protection  on  the  one  hand,  and  filial  piety  on 
the  other.     The  patron  had  to  explain  the  law  to  his  client,  to 
represent  him  before  the  tribunal  of  justice,   to  take  care  of  his 
domestic  affairs  and  property  like  a  father ;  in  short,  to  give  him 
every  possible  protection.     On  the  other  hand,  the  client  had  to  be 
faithful  and  affectionate  towards  his  patron  ;  to  do  him  every  service 
that  he  could ;  to  contribute  to  the  dowry  of  his  daughters,  so  far 
as  the  patron  Avas  without  means  ;  to  ransom  him  if  made  a  prisoner 
of  war  ;  to  help  to  defray  his  damages  if  cast  in  a  lawsuit,  or  con- 
demned to  pay  a  public  fine,  as  well  as  to  assist  him  in  paying  the 
expenses  connected  with  public  offices  and  dignities.     Patron  and 
client  were  not  to  bring  one  another  before  a  court  of  justice,  or 
to  bear  witness  against  one  another.     Dionysius,  from  whom  this 
account  is  taken,  is  not  the  only  author  who  thus  describes  the 
relations  of  the  ancient  clientship.    There  was  a  very  old  law  which 
directed  that  the  patron  who  should  occasion  hurt  to  his  client 
should  be  accursed  -,  ^  and,  according  to  Cato's  testimony,  the  client 
was  to  be  preferred  to  the  relation  by  blood.-     It  is  not  at  all 
to  be  doubted  that  the  relation  of  clientship  once  existed  in  this 
purity,  and  that  the  duties  which  it  imposed  on  both  parties  were 
o<mscientiously  observed. 

''  Eespecting  the  origin  of  clientship,  which  reaches  back  beyond 
the  historical  time,  of  course  no  historical  evidence  has  been  pre- 
served, and  we  can  therefore  only  form  conjectures  on  the  subject. 
Among  these  the  far  most  probable  is,  that  the  clients,  whose 
relation  to  their  patrons  was  an  hereditary  one,  were  at  first  the 
original  inhabitants  of  the  country  who  had  been  subjugated. 
Deprived  of  their  territory  by  conquering  races,  they  were  received 
in  exchange  into  a  peculiar  relationship  of  protection,  sanctioned  by 
relif^ion.  We  find  in  Greece  the  same  relationship  of  hereditary 
subjection  amongst  various  peoples,  and  where  it  occurs  we  may 
assume  that  it  originated  in  the  subjugation  of  a  more  ancient  popu- 
lation by  conquering  races.     But  whilst  in  Greece  the  subjugated 

1  Yirg.  iEn.  vi.  609,  et  ibi  Serv.  ^  Ap.  Gell.  v.  13,  4. 


^&M 


'f- 


f  .' 


PATRON  AND  CLIENT. 


331 


populations  are  mostly  found  as  hereditary  renters  of  farms  or  day 
labourers,  the  Roman  clientship  bore  a  much  nobler  character,  that 
of  a  relationship  sanctified  by  religion ;  the  reason  of  which  we 
must  probably  seek  in  the  pious  disposition  of  the  conquering  race  ; 
which  descending  from  the  Sabine  mountains  and  the  high  lands 
about  Eeate  into  the  valley  of  the  Tiber  settled  in  Latium. 

"  It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  and  is  also  confirmed  by 
other  indications,  that  the  clients  originally  possessed  no  property 
in  land.  They  were,  so  long  as  clientship  existed  after  the  old 
fashion,  mere  tenants  of  the  patricians  ;  they  held  only  precariously 
such  portions  of  the  ager  piihlicus  as  the  patricians  permitted  them 
to  cultivate  ;  and  when  they  were  not  hereditary  farmers  on  the 
lands  of  their  patrons,  they  followed  handicrafts  or  trades.  To 
obtain  freehold  land  would  under  the  most  ancient  a<Djrarian  svstem 
have  been  almost  impossible,  since  every  portion  of  land  was  an 
herediiim,  or  hereditary  possession.  Hence  we  find  not  that  they 
were  liable  to  military  service  in  the  classes  of  the  Servian  con- 
stitution. On  the  contrary,  according  to  the  account  of  Dionysius, 
the  clients  remained  in  Eome  during  the  first  secession  of  the  jylebs, 
and  therefore  served  not  in  the  rebellious  legions  who  retired  to 
the  Mons  Sacer.  'V\nien  wo  find  here  and  there  in  Dionysius  the 
clients  doing  military  service,  it  is  only  as  vassals  or  feudatories  of 
their  patrons. 

/  *'  That  the  clients  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the  ])lehs  appears 
from  what  has  been  already  said.  The  Eoman  clientship  has  a 
different  historical  origin  from  the  ;)/e6.«f,  and  rests  on  different  laws. 
The  clients  of  the  oldest  period  are  hereditary  subjects,  which  the 
plehs  are  not.  It  is  undoubtedly  incorrect  that  all  the  plebeians 
were  clients,  as  lime  has  recently  re-asserted  in  his  ^  Forschungen 
auf  dem  Gebiete  der  rcim.  Verfassungs  Geschichte.'  All  that  we 
know  concerning  the  sanctity  of  the  ancient  clientship,  and  which 
at  one  time  was  certainly  a  truth,  speaks  against  this  assumption. 
If  the  plebeians  were  clients,  how  shall  we  explain  the  continual 
bitter  contests  of  the  two  orders,  the  character  of  their  reciprocal 
relations,  founded,  as  it  were,  on  public  law,  the  heavy  oppressions 
which  the  patricians  exercised  towards  the  plebeians,  particularly 
by  means  of  the  cruel  law  respecting  debt,  and  the  creation  of  the 
tribunate,  which  arose  from  the  need  of  some  protecting  patrons  ? 
Further,  we  perceive  that  the  plebeians  ajopeared  in  person  before 
the  tribunals,  while  the  clients  were  represented  by  their  patrons. 


332 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


But  the  assumption  in  question  is  especially  contradicted  by- 
numerous  passages  in  the  ancient  historians,  in  which  the  clients 
are  not  only  distinguished  from  the  ;)/e6s,  but  formally  opposed  to 
it :  passages  which  decisively  exclude  the  possibility  that  the  whole 
of  the  plebeians  were  clients. 

*'  Other  scholars  do  not  indeed  completely  identify  the  clients 
with  the  plebs,  but  declare  them  to  be  a  portion  of  the  plehs.  They 
hold  that  the  clients  mentioned  in  the  passages  just  quoted^  are 
not  any  peculiar  order  different  from  the  people,  but  plebeians,  who 
from  motives  of  private  interest  had  voluntarily  become  clients,  and 
sided  with  their  patrons  against  i\iQ  piths;  that  clientship  from'the 
first  was  not  a  state  institution,  but  a  voluntary  and  personal  con- 
nexion. But  this  is  the  character  of  the  later  clientship.  Originally, 
and  in  the  old  time,  clientship  was  not,  according  to  all  accounts,  an 
arbitrary  and  conventional  relation,  but  an  indissoluble  and  here- 
ditary one,  resting  on  religious  grounds,  a  convention  founded  on 
piety,  of  which  the  later  clientship  is  a  mere  shadow.  Dionysius, 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  with  reference  to  this  for  the  most 
numerous  and  most  definite  notices,  often  expressly  distinguishes 
the  clients  from  that  part  of  the  plehs  which  held  with  the 
patricians;  and   thus  he   cannot   have  considered  the  clients  as 

part  of  the  ^;/eZ>5. 

"  Briefly,  as  it  is  undeniable  that,  the  clients  became  in  course  of 
time  amalgamated  with  the  ij/e6s,  of  which  they  thenceforth  formed 
a  part,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  decisively  hold  that  the 
clients'  of  the  most  ancient  period  were  in  their  origin  and  their 
legal  relations  a  different  order  from  the  plehs" 

This  account  of  the  earliest  Koman  clientship  is  little  more  than 
a  tissue  of  conjectures,  not  only  unsupported  by  evidence,  but 
actually  against  evidence. 

That  "  there  was  a  time  when  the  Roman  nation  consisted  only 
of  patrons  and  clients"  is  quite  true  ;  but  the  patrons  must  have 
been  patricians,  and  the  clients  plebeians ;  for  with  reference  to 
the  especial  privileges  of  the  patricians,  and  particularly  the  sacred 
character  with  which  they  were  endowed,  which,  through  the 
auspices,  made  them  the  interpreters   between  gods  and  men,  we 

The  passages  alluded  to  are  quoted  (S.  643,  Anm.  1)  from  Livy  and 
Dionysius  to  show  that  the  clients  were  distinct  from  the  general  body  of  the 
plehs,  and  often  sided  with  their  patrons  against  the  plehs;  a  point  which  we 
have  admitted. 


ft. 


M- 


PATRON   AND    CLIENT. 


333 


p  ■■■; 


*    '.Vf 


can  recognise  only  these  two  classes.  In  this  view,  Schwegler's 
conception  of  a  tertium  quid,  something  neither  fish  nor  llesh, 
neither  patrician  nor  plebeian,  is  utterly  incomprehensible.  There 
must,  consequently,  have  been  plebeians  at  Rome  from  the  very 
beginning;  and  instead  of  the  origin  of  clientship  being  more 
ancient  than  the  origin  of  the  plehs,  the  case  was  just  the  reverse ; 
for  the  clients  must  have  been  made  out  of  the  plehs. 

It  is  quite  true  that  "  every  client  belonged  to  the  ^ens  of  his 
patron."  But  what  follows  from  this  1  That  he  must  have  had 
political  rights,  that  he  must  have  belonged  to  the  curiae,  and  must 
therefore  have  been  entitled  to  a  vote  on  public  matters.  For  we 
have  shown  that  the  gentes  were  a  political  institution,  that  they 
constituted  subdivisions  of  the  curite,  and  this  view  is  accepted  by 
Schwegler  himself. ^  And  if  the  gentes  were  a  political  institution, 
then  clientship  must  also  have  been  a  political  institution,  since 
the  clients  belonged  to  a  gens;  and  as  there  must  have  existed 
materials  out  of  which  to  institute  the  clients,  there  must,  as  we 
have  already  said,  have  been  a  plehs  before  there  was  clientship. 

Dionysius  has  probably  given  a  correct  account  of  the  relations 
between  patron  and  client,  as  it  tallies  with  what  may  be  inferred 
from  Latin  authors,  who  only  incidentally  mention  the  subject,  and 
have  not  given  any  detailed  account  of  that  relationship.  But  to 
suppose  that  a  connexion  of  this  close  and  sacred  kind  could  have 
sprung  up  between  a  conquered  race  and  their  conquerors  is  one  of 
the  wildest  and  absurdest  of  conjectures.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
resemblance  between  the  Roman  clients  and  the  Thessalian  Penestse, 
the  Attic  Theta3,  the  Spartan  Helots,  and  other  Greek  serfs,  whom 
Schwegler  mentions  in  a  note,-  by  way  of  making  some  show  of 
authority  in  support  of  his  opinion.  But  this  opinion  we  need  not 
discuss,  because  Schwegler  himself  stultifies  it  by  observing  that 
'*  the  Roman  clientship  bore  a  much  nobler  character,  that  of  a 
relationship  sanctified  by  religion."  It  is  also  refuted  by  what 
Schwegler  himself  assumes  of  the  Latin  populations  conquered  by 
the  Romans,  and  transferred  to  Rome — in  which  view  we  concur 
— that  these  populations — with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  some 
of  the  Albans — were  not  admitted  into  the  curiae,  therefore  not 
into  the  gentes,  nor  into  clientship,  and  consequently  the  Roman 
method  of  treating  subjugated  populations  was  not  to  admit  them 
into  clientship.     And  the  Albans  admitted  into  clientship,  doubt- 

1  Buch  xiv.  s.  4.  ^  g^  540^  ^nm.  4. 


334 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


PATRON   AND   CLIENT. 


335 


less  became  the  clients  of  those  Alban  nobles  who  had  been  made 
Koman  patricians ;  for  in  those  days  a  patrician  without  clients 
would  have  been  as  great  an  anomaly  as,  in  former  times,  a  High- 
land laiid  without  a  tail. 

So  far  from  the  clients  having  been  a  conquered  race,  we  beheve 
them  to  have  belonged  to  the  race,  first  of  Eoman  conquerors,  and 
then  of  Komans  and  Sabines  united.     Their  condition  very  much 
resembled  that  of  vassals  of  the  Middle  Ages.    They  were  bound  to 
do  military  service  when  summoned  by  their  liege  lords,  the  patri- 
cians 3  and  both  connexions  are  characterised  by  very  similar  reci- 
procal duties  and  obligations.    Schwegler's  inferences  on  this  point 
are  most  extraordinary.     He  admits  that  we  sometimes  find  the 
clients  doing  military  service  as  vassals  or  feudatories,  which  is  all 
that  we  are° trying  to  establish.i     To  assert  that  the  cHents  were 
not  liable  to  military  service  under  the  Servian  constitution  proves 
nothing  with  regard  to  the  Komulean  constitution ;  but  even  this 
assertion  we  take  to  be  erroneous.     The  following  passage  in  Livy 
undoubtedly  refers  to  the  Comitia  Centuriata,  in  which  the  consuls 
were  elected  :— "  Irata  plebs  interesse  consularibus  comitiis  noluit. 
Per  patres  clientesque  patrum  consules  creati  T.  Quinctius,  Q.  Ser- 
vilius."  -     But  we  have  seen  that  in  the  Comitia  Centuriata  only 
those  had  a  vote  who  were  liable  to  military  service.     That  the 
clients  did  not  join  the  remainder  of  the  plebs  against  the  patricians 
in  the  first  secession,  as  Dionysiiis  ^  relates,  is  exactly  what  might 
have  been  expected,  and  proves  nothing  at  all  with  regard  to  their 
original  rights.     The  Servian  constitution  naturally  rendered  them 
a  comparatively  aristocratic  body,  and,  in  political  matters,  bound 
them  more  and  more  to  their  patrons,  since  as  members  of  the 
patrician  gentes,  and  of  the  curiit,  they  possessed  privileges  not 
enjoyed  by  the  remainder  of  the  plebs. 

"  It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,"  observes  Schwegler,  ''  and 
is  also  confirmed  by  other  indications,  that  the  clients  originally 
possessed  no  property  in  land."  But  if  what  has  been  said  has  no 
reasonable  foundation,  then  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it  is  also 

1  Trp^s  5e  Tohs  e^co06*/  iroXefxlovs  avrol  re  x^fc^^e;/  aTrdar)  irpodv/ia,  Kal  robs 
-neXdras  Hiravras  iTvayc^fi^Oa,  Kal  rod  B-nfxoriKOV  t6  nepidv,  k.t.A.— Dioiiys.  VI. 

C3  ;  cf.  vii.  19;  ix.  15;  x.  27,  &c.  ..  •       ^       .        +. 

2  Lib  ii  64  Schwegler  in  a  note  (S.  642,  Anni.  1)  promises  to  return  to 
these  two  passages,  and,  we  suppose,  explain  them  away  ;  but  we  do  not  find 
that  they  are  noticed  in  the  account  of  the  Servian  constitution. 

3  Lib.  \i.  47,  51. 


,%f 


•IS'' 


without  any  reasonable  ground.  And  for  the  other  indications 
which  were  to  confirm  it  we  look  in  vain.  For  the  following 
passage  from  Paulus  Uiaconus  :  ^  "  Patres  senatores  ideo  appellati 
sunt,  quia  agrorum  partes  attribuerant  tenuioribus  ac  si  liberis 
propriis,"  cannot  be  construed  to  mean  that  *'  they  held  only  pre- 
cariously such  portions  of  the  ager  jniblicus  as  the  patricians  per- 
mitted them  to  cultivate  :  "  attribuere,  especially,  as  here,  coupled 
with  the  words  "ac  si  liberis  propriis,"  rather  means gavCj  bestowed; 
namely,  two  jugera  a-piece.  And  this  agrees  with  what  has  been 
already  said  about  the  term  cetiturta  as  applied  to  land,  and  here- 
diumr  IN'or  can  it  be  supposed  that  the  holders  of  so  small  a 
portion  of  land  as  two  Jugera  were  patricians. 

This  is  the  only  passage  adduced  by  Schwegler  to  support  his 
view  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  "  indications"  from  Livy,  Plutarch, 
and  Dionysius,  which  are  incontestably  as  good  as  any  from  Paulus, 
lead  quite  the  other  way.  On  this  subject,  Schwegler  says :  * 
*'  That  the  clients  were  really  landowners  in  ancient  times  has  been 
inferred  from  Livy  (ii.  16),  and  Plutarch  (Popl.  21),  where  we  are 
told  that  land  was  assigned  by  the  state  to  the  clients  of  the  immi- 
grant Appius  Claudius,  two  jugera  to  each  client.  But  such  details 
are  as  little  to  be  held  strictly  historical  as  the  5,000  clients  of 
Appius.  iMoreover,  that  district  beyond  the  Anio  is  described  bj 
Dionysius  (v.  40),  not  as  given  up  immediately  to  the  clients,  but 
to  Appius  Claudius  to  distribute  among  them,  <Jc  e'xoi  Siavel/xac 
K\7Jpov<s  airadi  Toi^  irepi  avroy  j  which  very  well  agrees  with  our 
assumption." 

This  piece  of  criticism  proceeds  on  the  usual  German  method  of 
depreciating  even  the  best  authorities,  if  they  make  against  a 
favourite  theory.  But,  whatever  may  be  their  historical  value  — 
and,  if  they  had  been  on  the  other  side,  they  would  have  been 
eagerly  caught  at — they  are  assuredly  more  valuable  than  no 
authority  at  all,  and  none  appears  on  the  other  side.  As  to  the 
5,000  clients,  that  probably  is  only  one  of  the  usual  exaggerations 
of  Dionysius.  Livy  merely  says,  "  magna  clientium  coniitatus 
manu."  But  the  boldness  with  which  Schwegler  claims  the  word^, 
quoted  from  Dionysius  as  being  in  his  own  favour  is  something 
extraordinary,  even  for  a  German  critic.  KXijpos  does  not  mean  n 
piece   of  land  let  out  on  lease — wdiich  is  Schwegler's  theory  oi 

1  P.  247.  3  Above,  p. 

=*  S.  611,  Anm.  2.  97. 


336 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


PATROXS  AND   CLIENTS. 


39H, 


0( 


clientship— but  a  piece  assigned  as  an  hereditary  freehold.  And, 
though  the  whole  tract  was  in  the  first  instance  assigned  to  Claudius 
to  distribute  among  his  clients,  this  does  not  alter  the  matter,  but 
seems  rather  to  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  ancient  Koman 
practice.  For,  in  like  manner,  the  Koman  territory  seems  to  have 
been  first  assigned  to  the  tribes,  then  divided  among  centuries,  and 
finally  among  individuals ;  so  that  the  share  of  each  client  seemed 
to  be  a  gift  from  his  patron,  and  was  at  all  events  received  at  his 
hands.  Livy,  in  the  passage  just  cited,  represents  the  land  as 
given  to  the  clients,  who  nevertheless  may  have  received  their 
allotments  through  Appius.  But  it  is  hardly  to  be  believed  that 
this  new  body  of  clients  were  put  on  a  better  footing  than  the 
clients  of  the  time  of  Eomulus,  by  being  made  landowners,  while 
their  predecessors  were  only  tenants. 

"  That  the  clients,"  observes  Schwegler,  "  are  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  phbs,  appears  from  what  has  been  already  said."  It  is 
more  satisfactory  to  find  that  this  fact  appears  from  classical 
authority.  AVhen  Livy  says,  in  a  passage  recently  quoted,  that 
the  irritated  plebs  refused  to  take  any  part  in  the  consular  Comitia, 
and  that  consequently  the  consuls  were  chosen  by  the  patricians 
and  their  clients,  it  appears  plainly  that  the  clients  formed  a  pecu- 
liar section  of  the  plebs.  This  is  also  shown  by  the  passage  from 
Dionysius  quoted  on  the  same  occasion,  where  the  TreXarat,  or 
clients,  are  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  plebs  {tov  ^n^^oTlKov  to 
TTEPioy).^  We  have  already  explained  the  reason  of  this  distinction. 
But  we  do  not  believe  the  clients  to  have  been  a  sort  of  hereditary 
bondsmen ;  and,  according  to  what  we  have  alr-,ady  said,  we  of 
course    do    not   believe,  with    Ihne,  that    aU    the  plebeians  were 

clients. 

When  Schwegler,  in  the  note  just  referred  to,  says  :  "  It  proves 
nothing  to  the  contrary  (viz,  that  the  clients  were  distinct  from 
the  pkbs\  if  Cicero  says  (De  Rep.  ii.  9)  :  '  Romulus  habuit  plebera 
in  clientelas  principum  descriptam  ; '  and  if  the  same  view  is  ex- 
pressed in  Festus,  p.  233  :  '  Patrocinia  appellari  coepta  sunt,  cum 
plebs  distributa  est  inter  patres,  ut  eorum  opibus  tuta  esset '  (cf. 
Dionys.  ii.  9  :  Plut.  Rom.  13).  Since,  without  urging  that  accounts 
like  these  concerning  the  original  institutions  of  Romulus  do  not 
rest  upon  historical  knowledge,  but  arise  from  construction  and  in- 

1  For  other  passages  to  the  same  effect  see  Schwegler's  note  already  referred 
to  (S.  643,  Anm.  1). 


inference"  (sondern  construirt  sind),  "nothing  compels  us  to  accept 
in  these  passages  the  expression  2^l<-'bs  in  the  strong  and  technical 
sense  which  it  bore  in  the  period  of  the  struggle  between  the  orders. 
In  itself  it  signifies  Hlie  undistinguished  mass,'  'the  common 
people,'  and  might  thus  be  very  properly  used  to  signify  the 
yet  undistributed  mass  of  clients  in  contradistinction  to  the 
patricians,  and  may  even  be  reconciled  with  the  assumption 
that  originally  the  Roman  people  consisted  only  of  patricians  and 
clients." 

That  the  passages  from  Cicero  and  other  Amters  cited  at  the 
beginning  of  this  extract  are  merely  inferences,  or  constructions, 
we  do  not  admit ;  but,  even  if  they  were,  Schwegler  has  nothing  but 
inferences  and  constructions  of  his  own  to  oppose  to  them ;  which, 
in  the  present  wreck  of  Roman  literature,  are  not  likely  to  be  a 
hundredth  part  so  well  founded.  And  the  concluding  sentence  is 
a  virtual  admission  of  the  point  at  issue.  For  if  originally  the 
Roman  people  consisted  only  of  patricians  and  clients,  and  if  these 
clients  were  the  "undistinguished  mass,"  the  "common  people,"  then 
there  was  originally  a  2^lebsj  which  is  all  that  we  arc  contending  for. 
AU  Schwegler's  views  and  reasonings  are  founded  on  two  main  over- 
sights :  first,  that  the  grand  characteristic  of  the  patricians,  besides 
superior  wealth,  was  their  sacred  character,  the  possession  of  the 
auspices;  and  that  in  this  view  there  could  be  but  two  classes, 
patricians  and  j^lebeians :  though  of  plebeians  there  might  bo  dif- 
ferent ranks,  according  to  wealth  and  political  privileges.  And  even 
under  the  Servian  constitution  wealth  would  make  a  distinction 
between  plebeians,  as  determining  the  class  in  which  they  were 
to  vote  ;  but  it  would  make  no  distinction  between  them  and  the 
patricians,  because  the  privileges  of  the  latter  rested  on  quite  a 
different  test,  namely,  religion  and  the  auspices :  and  in  this  respect 
the  wealtliiest  plebeian  was  as  widely  separated  from  a  patrician  as 
the  poorest.  But,  secondly,  the  Romulean  plebsj  or  at  all  events 
the  clients,  who  originally  perhaps  formed  nearly  the  whole  of  it, 
were  further  distinguished  from  the  subsequent  plebs  by  being  mem- 
bers of  the  Comitia  Curiata ;  a  privilege  which,  besides  the  bond 
between  patron  and  client,  naturally  inclined  them,  after  the 
establishment  of  the  Servian  constitution,  to  side  in  most  cases 
with  their  patrons.  Unless  we  keep  these  distinctions  in  view,  we 
shall  never  clearly  understand  the  early  Roman  liistory.  And 
Schwegler  loses  sight  of  them  only  because  he  persists  in  rejecting 

Z 


338 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


PROFESSOR  NEWMAN'S  VIEW. 


339 


the  best  and  most  decisive  testimony,  and  in  preferring  to  it  his 
own  inferences  and  conjectures. 

There  still  remain  to  he  examined  the  remarks  of  another 
authority  on  this  question,  which  cannot  be  passed  over,  even  at 
the  risk  of  repeating  what  we  have  before  said  perhaps  more  than 
once.  It  may  be  better  to  be  tedious  in  these  repetitions  than^  to 
incur  the  charge  either  of  superciliously  disregarding  the  opinion 
of  an  eminent  scholar,  or  of  neglecting  to  answer  his  remarks  be- 
cause they  were  unanswerable  ;  and  fortunately  they  are  short. 

Professor  Newman,  in  a  paper  on  the  Comitia  Curiata,  published 
in  the  "  Classical  Museum,"  ^  has  observed :  "  Niebuhr  has  done 
service  to  the  early  Eoman  history  (against  the  admirers  of  Diony- 
sius)    by  establishing  that  the  curies  were  essentially  patrician. 
The  fact  is  so  very  clear  to  one  who  studies  Livy  only,  that  pro- 
bably nothing  but  the  attempt  to  reconcile  him  with  Dionysius  can 
have  misled  previous  inquirers.     Nor  does  it  appear  requisite  in 
this  matter  to  affect  to  learn  more  out  of  Li\7's  words  than  Livy 
himself  knew.     Nothing  at  least  is  let  drop  by  him  which  would 
imply  that  he,  as  Dionysius,  looked  on  the  curiate  assembly  as 
plebeian  and  democratical.     On  the  contrary,  the  very  first  time  he 
refers  to  the  Auctoritas  Patrum  he  uses  words  which  seem  distinctly 
to  imply  that  he  understood  by  it  '  the  assent  of  the  curies.'     It 
has  reference    to  the    election  of   Numa,   Liv.  i.    17.     He  says  : 
<  Patres  decreverunt,  ut  cum  populus  regem  jussisset,  id  sic  ratum 
esset,  si  Patres  auctores  fierent.' " 

We  have  before  adverted  to  this  passage,  but  we  will  view  it 
again  under  this  new  light. 

The  Patres  first  mentioned  in  this  sentence  are,  as  we  have 
already  said,  undoubtedly  the  Senate.     This  appears  not  only  from 
the  word  decreverunt,  but  also  from  the  whole  context   of  the 
chapter.     For  first,  it  is  the  centum  Patres,  or  senators,  that  seize 
the  whole  power  of  the  state  ;  and  when  the  people  murmur,  it  is 
these  same  centum  Patres  who  make  the  decree  just  quoted  ("Quum 
sensissent  ea  moveri  patres,  offerendum  ultro  rati,  quod  amissuri 
erant,  ita  gratiam  ineunt,  summa  potestate  populo  permissa,  ut  non 
plus  darent  juris  quam  retinerent.     Decreverunt  enim,"  &c.)     But 
the  Patres  last  mentioned  ("si  Patres  auctores  fierent")  are,  according 
to  the  view  of  Niebuhr  and  Professor  Newman,  the  members  of 
the   curiae.      And   further,  according   to   the  view  of  the   same 

1  Vol.  i.  p.  101,  seqq. 


4 


writers,  the  populus  is  also  the  same  members  of  the  curia?.  Now 
see  what  absurdities  follow.  For,  in  this  view,  the  sentence  oi 
Livy  amounts  to  this  :  *'  Tlie  Fathers  decreed,  that  when  the 
2)opuhis  (or  Comitia  Curiata)  had  elected  a  king,  the  election 
should  stand  good  if  the  populus  (or  Comitia  Curiata)  authorized 
it ! "  Which  is  about  as  rational  as  if  we  should  say :  "The 
House  of  Lords  permitted  the  Commons  to  choose  a  king,  and  the 
act  was  to  be  valid  if  the  Commons  authorized  it.'* 

Further :  we  are  told  by  Livy  in  the  sentence  immediately 
preceding,  which  we  have  quoted  in  brackets,  that  the  Senate, 
though  tliey  permitted  the  people  to  elect  a  king,  retained  in  their 
own  hands  as  much  constitutional  privilege  as  they  gave  ("ut  non 
plus  darent  juris  quam  retinerent").  This  of  course  could  only  be 
done  by  retaining  a  veto,  that  is,  by  withholding  their  auctoritas,  if 
they  should  see  fit.  But  if  this  auctoritas  was  to  be  exercised  not 
by  them  but  by  the  electing  body,  or  Comitia  Curiata,  how  could 
Livy  say  that  they  retained  as  much  power  as  they  gave  ? 

The  Latin  language  is  sufficiently  ambiguous  in  using  Patres  both 
for  the  Senate  and  for  the  whole  patrician  body ;  but  if  it  applied 
that  term  also  to  the  curies,  we  should  have  confusion  worse  con- 
founded. 

It  is  only  fair  to  add  that  a  little  further  on  Professor  Newman 
subjoins  the  following  note  : — "  In  the  passage  quoted  from  Livy, 
i.  17,  by  populus  Livy  must  have  meant  the  mass  of  the  com- 
munity (whether  called  clients  or  plebeians)  as  he  contrasts  them 
to  the  patrician  curies  and  to  the  Senate.  It  would  be  hardy  to 
maintain  that  he  was  correct  in  supposing  this  multitude  to  receive 
formal  authority  to  elect  a  king  ;  and  perhaps  we  must  necessarily 
impute  error  here." 

The  error,  we  fear,  lies  with  the  critic.  For  the  assumption  in 
question  is  entirely  opposed  not  only  to  the  accounts  of  all  subse- 
quent elections,  which  are  evidently  made  by  the  populus  in  their 
Comitia  Curiata,  but  even  to  Cicero's  account  of  this  very  election 
of  Numa.  For  that  writer  says  :  '*  Kegem  alienigenam  patribus 
auctoribus  sibi  ipse  popidus  ascivit.  .  .  .  Qui  ut  hue  venit,  quam- 
quam  po2iuhis  curiatis  eum  comitiis  regem  esse  jusserat,  tamen  ipse 
de  suo  imperio  curiatam  legem  tulit  "  (De  Rep.  ii.  13).  Whence  it 
appears  that  Numa  was  elected  not  by  "the  mass  of  the  com- 
munity," or  unenfranchised  plebeians,  but  by  the  Comitia  Curiata. 
Nor  can  any  other  meaning  be  fairly  extracted  from  livy ;  and  that 

z2 


uo 


">.-. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KIXGS  OF  ROME. 


SIR   G.    C.   LEWIS  \S   VIEW 


341 


there  is  any  "contrast"  in  his  words,  except  between  the  j^opidus 
and  the  Senate  (not  the  curies),  is  a  gratuitous  assumption. 

Professor  [N^ewman  proceeds  as  follows  :  "  Then,  in  order  to 
explain  the  last  words,  he  (Livy)  subjoins "  (viz.  to  the  sentence 
which  the  Professor  had  before  quoted):  *' *  i/o^Zm^we  in  legibus 
niagistratibus(|ue  rogandis  usurpatur  idem  jus,  vi  adempta  :  prius- 
quam  poinilus  suffragiuni  ineat,  in  incertum  comitiorum  eventum 
Fat  res  aiictores  Jiunt.''  It  is  perfectly  clear,  first,  that  this  illustra- 
tion is  his  own,  and  is  not  slavishly  copied  from  an  old  annalist ; 
and  next  that  he  refers  to  the  shadowy  assembly  of  the  curies  (of 
which  Cicero  speaks,  In  EuUum  ii.  11),  as  the  existing  body,  which, 
before  the  Comitia  voted,  gave  the  Auctoritas  Patrum  to  that 
which  was  about  to  be  proposed ;  for  no  one  can  imagine  that  he 
meant  the  Senate.  It  may  almost  be  inferred  that  in  Livy's  day  the 
beadles  of  the  curies  gave  the  assent  of  that  body  by  the  formula, 
*  Patres  auctores  sumus  : '  and  if  so,  it  is  unreasonable  to  question 
that  the  law  of  the  Dictator  Publilius  (Liv.  viii.  12)  was  well 
understood  by  the  historian,  who  reports  it  in  the  words,  "  Ut  legum, 
quse  comitiis  centuriatis  ferrentur,  ante  initium  sulfragium  Patres 
auctores  fierent." 

From  what  is  here  said,  the  reader  who  had  not  looked  into  the 
oration  against  Eullus  might  conclude  that  Cicero  said  plainly  that 
the  then  sliadowy  assembly  of  the  curies  actually  gave  the  Auc- 
toritas Patrum,  or,  at  all  events,  that  such  an  inference  necessarily 
followed  from  his  words.  Put  nothing  of  the  sort.  Almost  the 
only  use  of  the  Curies  at  that  late  date  w^as  for  conferring  the  im- 
perium,  a  mere  formality.  It  was  the  possession  of  the  auspices 
that  enabled  them  to  do  this.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Eomulus  originally  established  the  curies  by  augury,  like  all  his 
other  institutions,  and  the  patricians  at  the  head  of  each  curia  and 
each  gens  continued  to  retain  the  auspices.  And  to  this  effect 
Cicero  says,  in  the  following  passage  of  the  speech  in  question  : 
"  Sint  igitur  decemviri,  neque  veris  comitiis,  neque  illis  ad  speciem, 
atque  ad  usurpationem  vetustatis  per  xxx  lictores,  auspiciorum  causa, 
adumbratis,  constituti"  (In  Eull.  ii.  12).  In  which  passage  he 
speaks  not  of  any  authority  r/iven  beforehand,  or,  in  the  words  of 
Livy,  "  in  incertum  comitiorum  eventmn  Patres  auctores  jiunt, '^  to 
elect  the  decemvirs,  but  of  the  election  itself. 

It  would  be  beside  our  purpose  to  enter  into  the  remainder  of 
Professor  ISTewman's  article,  which  is  a   refutation  of  JSTiebuhr's 


1; 


if" 


i 


views  respecting  the  Comitia  Curiata.  The  next  two  paragraphs 
alone  have  a  direct  bearing  on  our  subject,  and  these  have  been 
already  answered  in  tlie  preceding  examination  of  Scliwegler's  re- 
marks. The  first  of  them  relates  to  the  curiae  liaving  retained  in  later 
times  a  connexion  with  certain  patrician  interests, — as,  for  instance, 
when  a  patrician  was  to  be  adopted  into  another  family.  Tlic  second 
afiirms  that  nothing  would  have  been  gained  by  the  plebeians  by 
the  Servian  constitution  if  they  had  already  had  votes  in  the 
Comitia  Curiata.  For  what  Ave  have  said  on  these  points  see  above, 
p.  320,  and  p.  322. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  enters  not  at  any  length  into  the  questions 
which  we  have  here  discussed ;  but  we  are  happy  to  (juote  the 
opinion  of  this  distinguished  scholar  in  suj)port  of  the  views  that 
we  have  advocated.  He  remarks  :  ^  "  The  arguments  by  which  it 
is  attempted  to  prove  that  the  curiae  were  aristocratic  bodies,  and 
consisted  exclusively  of  patricians,  are  all  indirect  and  conjectural ; 
no  trace  of  any  such  idea  can  be  found  in  any  ancient  writer,  or 
even  in  any  modem  writer  prior  to  jN^iebulir."  And  in  a  note  he 
says  :  "  The  non-existence  of  the  right  of  marriage  between  jxatricians 
and  plebeians,  which  Schwegler  uses  as  a  proof  that  both  were  not  in 
the  original  curia),  has  no  bearing  on  this  question,  as  the  prohibi- 
tion is  stated  to  have  been  introduced  by  the  Twelve  Tables.-  The 
identity  of  the  auctoritas  patrum  with  the  lex  curiata  de  imperio, 
which  is  the  main  support  of  this  hypothesis,  is  itself  a  hypothesis, 
and  is  not  proved  by  the  argument  of  Pecker  (ii.  i.  pp.  314-2G)." 
(This  argument  we  have  examined  above  in  detail.)  "  The  celebrated 
passage  of  Cicero  (De  Lege  Agr.  ii.  11)  shows  that  the  lex  curiata 
de  imperio  was  originally  the  subject  of  a  popular  vote,  and  that  it 
was  different  from  the  confirmation  either  of  the  Senate  or  tlie 
patricians.  (See  Marquardt,  Handbuch,  iii.  3,  p.  186.)  The  lex 
curiata  de  imperio  was  proposed  to  the  Comitia  Curiata,  according 
to  the  regular  practice,  in  308  B.C.  (Liv.  ix.  38.)  Camillus  is 
described  by  Livy  as  having  been  recalled  from  exile  by  the  Comitia 
Curiata,  and  appointed  dictator  *jussu  populi'  (v.  4G).  The  latter 
was  irregular.  Camillus  afterwards  describes  the  Comitia  Curiata 
as  relating  to  military  afi"airs  :  *  Comitia  Curiata  qua?  rem  militarem 

1  Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  542. 

2  This  may  have  been  the  first  prohibition  hy  lavj ;  but  the  custom  must 
have  been  observed  previously,  and  we  have  already  given  another  answer 
to  Schwegler's  argument. 


342 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF   ROME. 


continent'  (v.  52).  Appius  Claudius,  in  his  speecli  at  the  time  of 
Licinian  rogations,  speaks  of  the  Senate  as  confirming  the  act  of  the 
Comitia  Curiata  :  '  Nee  centuriatis  nee  curiatis  comitii  Patres  auc- 
tores  fiant'  (iv.  41).  The  latter  passage  is  a  clear  proof  that  Livy 
conceived  the  Auctoritas  Patrum  to  be  distinct  from  an  act  of  the 
Comitia  Curiata." 

The  same  author  remarks,^  with  regard  to  the  word  popuhis  : 
"  It  is  possible  that  the  word  populus  may  have  originally  signified 
the  patricians  without  the  plebeians  ;  it  certainly  seems  to  require 
tliis  sense  in  the  oracle  in  Livy  (xxv.  12):  'Praetor  is  qui  jus 
populo  plebique  dabit  summum.' ^  (See  I^ewman,  ih.  p.  114.) 
But  it  is  equally  certain  that  populus  in  Livy  and  other  Eoman 
historians,  and  Iniioq  in  Dionysius,  is  used  by  them  in  the  received 
acceptation  of  these  words ;  and  we  are  not  entitled  to  assume  that 
they  did  not  understand  their  own  language,  or  that  of  the  his- 
torians whose  writings  they  used." 

Having  thus  endeavoured  to  show  of  what  elements  the  early 
Eoman  population  was  composed,  and  that  it  consisted  of  patricians 
and  i:>leh8  distributed  into  tribes,  curiae,  and  gentes ;  that  the  persons 
thus  distributed,  both  patricians  and  plebeians,  were  called  by  the 
general  name  of  populus;  that,  besides  these,  there  was,  even  per- 
haps in  the  reign  of  Eomulus,  a  certain  portion  of  the  yhhs  not  so 
distributed,  and  therefore  without  any  political  rights;  and  that 
this  last  class  was  enormously  increased,  in  the  reigns  of  Ancus 
Marcius  and  Tarquinius  Priscus,  by  the  settling  of  a  great  many 
Latins  at  Eome  \  we  will,  before  proceeding  to  give  an  account  of 
the  new  constitution  established  by  Servius,  advert  to  a  few  more 
points  in  that  of  Eomulus.  And  first  of  the  nature  of  the  kingly 
power. 

We  have  already  endeavoured  to  show^  that  Eomulus  reigned  as 
an  absolute  king  by  divine  right ;  that  the  law  lay  in  his  own 
breast ;  that  everything  proceeded  from  his  prerogative  and  grace, 
and  that  even  the  Senate  was  only  a  kind  of  royal  council,  whose 
function  it  was  to  advise,  but  not  to  dhect  Mm.  After  the  Sabine 
union,  however,  and  particularly  after  the  death  of  Eomulus,  a 
change  takes  place.  The  Senate  appear  to  have  become  weary  of 
the  absolute  dominion  of  the  king,  and  even  perhaps  to  have  com- 


Credibility,  &c.,  note  219. 

We  have  endeavoured  to  explain  the  meaning  of  populus  and  plchs  in 

3hecy.     Above,  p.  301.  ^  Above,  p.  131. 


this 


■  .'hi' 


'^X. 


4  ' 


1« 


.i- 


REGAL  CONSTITUTION. 


343 


passed  his  death  with  the  design  of  establishing  a  revolution.  The 
Interreges  which  they  set  up  arc  a  sort  of  foreshadowing  of  the 
consular  system  afterwards  introduced,  and  the  establishment  of  an 
aristocratic  republic  ;  at  the  head  of  which  were  to  be  magistrates 
invested  with  the  kingly  power,  but  enjoying  it  only  for  a  limited 
period.  The  first  attempt,  however,  proved  abortive.  Mutual 
jealousies  induced  the  Senate  to  shift  the  fasces  too  often ;  the  fre- 
quent change  of  masters  was  felt  by  tlie  people  to  be  galling  and 
inconvenient,  and  they  compelled  the  Senate  to  return  to  the 
regal  system.  The  same  result  may  have  been  promoted  by  the  as 
yet  imperfect  amalgamation  of  the  Eoman  and  Sabine  elements. 
There  was  still  a  jealousy  between  the  two  races,  as  is  shown  by  the 
agreement  now  come  to,  that  a  king  should  be  alternately  elected 
from  each.  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  this  was  the  origin  of 
the  elective  Eoman  crown,  though  Dionysius  absurdly  represents 
Eomulus,  after  he  had  built  his  city,  called  it  by  his  own  name,  and 
exercised  all  the  prerogatives  of  an  absolute  monarch,  submitting 
his  title  to  the  crown  to  the  election  of  the  people.^  And  for  the 
same  reason  it  is,  perhaps,  that  we  hear  of  no  heirs  of  the  first  thi-ee 
kings  ;  but  when  the  people  has  become  more  amalgamated,  and 
this  alternation  of  the  crown  is  no  longer  necessary,  nor  perhaps 
even  possible,  we  begin  to  hear  of  the  sons  of  Ancus  Marcius 
laying  claim  to  the  crown  on  the  strength  of  their  royal  descent. 
But  this  claim  is  counteracted  by  the  usurpation  of  Tarquinius 

Priscus. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  precisely  what  limitations  were  set  to  the 
royal  prerogative  by  the  revolution  which  introduced  Xuma.  The 
very  act  of  his  election,  however,  and  the  confirmation  of  his 
authority  by  a  lex  curiata  de  imj^erio,  w^ere  acknowledgments  that 
he  owed  all  to  the  people,  and  that  the  claim  of  divine  right  was 
virtually  abandoned;  though  he  was  still  installed  with  augural 
ceremonies,  as  the  elect  of  the  gods.  The  most  essential  charac- 
teristic of  the  Lex  Curiata  was  that  it  conferred  the  military  com- 
mand ;2  for  in  a  nation  of  warriors,  and  among  a  population  the 
organization  of  which  resembled  that  of  an  army,  the  king  was 
regarded  as  their  general  or  leader  in  war.  Eut  it  also  conferred 
the  judicial  power,  as  we  learn  from  the  express  testimony  of  Dion 

1  Lib.  ii.  3. 

2  "Comitia  cnriata,  qyrnc  rem  militarem  continent."— Liv.  v.  52;  cf.  Cic. 
De  Leg.  Agr.  ii.  12,  s.  30. 


344 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


REGAL   CONSTITUTION. 


345 


Cassius.^  It  has  further  been  inferred  from  a  passage  in  Tacitus,^ 
in  which  the  Lex  Curiata  is  spoken  of  as  regulating  the  appoint- 
ment of  quaestors  by  the  kings,  that  on  this  hxw  the  rights  and 
powers  of  the  king  were  separately  enumerated.  It  appears,  from 
the  account  of  the  proceedings  of  TuUus,  after  Horatius  had  mur- 
dered his  sister,  that,  in  cases  of  high  treason  at  least,  the  king  had, 
under  the  new  system,  given  the  staff  of  justice  out  of  his  own 
hands,  and  tliat  a  law  had  been  passed  to  submit  such  cases  to  the 
decision  of  duumvirs,  whose  judgment,  however,  still  admitted  of 
an  appeal  to  the  people.  The  Senate,  also,  would  appear  to  have 
gained  more  authority,  since  in  Li\^'s  account  of  the  forms  for 
declaring  war  introduced  by  Ancus  Marcius.  he  is  represented  as 
not  merely  consulting  that  body,  but  as  being  guided  by  the 
decision  of  the  majority.^  Schwegler  objects  to  this  formula  that 
it  cannot  be  a  genuine  document  of  the  regal  period,  because  only 
the  Senate  and  people  are  named  in  the  declaration,  and  the  king 
is  not  once  mentioned.'*  But  there  is  no  force  in  this  objection. 
Throughout  the  kingly  period,  wars  and  treaties  are  regarded  as 
waged  between  peoples,  and  not  between  kings.  Thus,  in  the 
earliest  example  of  a  treaty  made  under  TuUus,  we  find,  "Illis 
legibus  2>opidus  Romanus  prior  non  deficiet  ;"^  and  again  :  "  Tu  illo 
die,  Jupiter,  popidum  Romanum  sio  ferito,"  &c.  without  a  word 
about  the  king.  But  before  the  making  of  the  treaty,  the  Fetialis 
asks  Tullus  :  "  Jubesne  me,  Rex,  cum  patre  patrato  populi  Albani 
foedus  ferire  1"  showing  that  the  document  belonged  to  the  regal 
period. 

The  king  not  only  led  his  armies  in  person ;  he  also  personally 
administered  justice.  This  appears  from  the  account  of  the  pre- 
tended dispute  between  the  assassins  of  Ancus  Marcius,  who  are 
brought  before  the  king  in  order  that  he  may  hear  and  decide  the 
case  ;  also  from  the  proceedings  after  the  murder  of  Tarquin,  when, 
while  it  is  pretended  that  he  is  still  alive,  Servius  Tullius  dis- 
charges vicariously  liis  functions  as  judge.     The  same  thing  also 

^  Lib.  xxxix.  19.     On  the  whole  subject,  see  Rubino,  S.  367,  f. 

2  Ann.  xi.  22  ;  cf.  Schwegler,  B.  i.  S.  653. 

3  Ann.  xi.  32.  We  of  course  take  the  term  patrcs  here  to  mean  the  senators. 
It  is  hardly  possible  that  in  any  other  case  the  king  could  ask  all  their 
opinions  in  turn  ("  Inde  ordine  alii  rogabantur  ").  Besides,  the  Fetialis  in 
declaring  war  saj^s  :  "  Senatusque  populi  Romani  Quiritium  censuit,  con- 
sensit,  conscivit,  ut  bellum  cum  Priscis  Latinis  fieret." 

4  B.  i.  S.  662,  Anm.  3.  ^  Liy,  i,  24. 


'*.    1! 


appears  from  the  express  testimony  of  ancient  writers,  and  espe- 
cially the  following  passage  in  Cicero: — '' Jus  privati  petere  sole- 
bant  a  regibus ;  .  .  .  .  nee  vero  (^uisquam  privatus  erat  discejitator 
aut  arbiter  litis,  sed  omnia  conficiebantur  judiciis  regiis."^  The 
king,  however,  in  the  administration  of  justice,  appears  to  have 
been  assisted  by  a  council,  and  especially  in  capital  causes ;  at  least 
it  has  been  thought  that  w^e  may  infer  this  from  what  Livy  says  of 
Tarquinius  Superbus  :  "  Ut  metum  pluribus  incuteret,  cognitiones 
capitalium  rerum  sine  consiliis  per  se  solus  exercebat :"-  though 
perhaps  it  may  only  mean  without  consulting  the  Senate ;  for  we 
do  not  hear  that  the  kings  had  any  other  council :  and  Livy  tells 
us  in  the  same  place  that  the  neglecthig  of  the  Senate  was  one  of 
the  crimes  charged  against  the  tyrant :  *'  Hie  enim  regum  primus 
traditum  a  prioribus  morem  de  omnibus  senatum  consulendi  solvit." 

As  the  Eoman  king  was  the  lawgiver  of  his  people,  the  supreme 
judge,  and  the  commander-in-chief  in  w\ar,  so  also  he  was  the  high 
priest  of  the  State.  This  appears  from  aU  the  religious  institutions 
of  Eome  being  attributed  to  the  kings,  and  especially  to  ^N^uma. 
Nor  was  he  a  mere  superintendent  of  religion  j  he  discharged  in 
person  the  functions  of  a  priest.  Eomulus  himself  was  an  augur  j^ 
Numa  officiated  as  a  priest  in  the  service  of  several  gods,  and 
especially  as  Flamen  Dialis  ;  *  and  of  Ancus  Marcius  we  are  told, 
that  when  he  went  to  war  he  handed  over  to  the  priests  the  care 
of  divine  worship,^  which  implies,  as  Schwegler  has  observed,  that 
he  himself  previously  officiated.^  And  when  the  celel)ration  of 
public  worship  had  long  been  transferred  to  the  Pontifices,  Fla- 
mines,  and  other  priests,  certain  functions  still  belonged  personally 
to  the  king,  for  the  discharge  of  which,  after  the  fail  of  the 
monarchy,  it  became  necessary  to  create  a  Rex  Sacrificulus. 

Becker  remarks  on  this  subject :  *'  It  may  appear  that  the 
making  of  treaties  and  alliances  was  not  carried  out,  like  declara- 
tions of  war,  in  the  name  of  the  Senate  and  people,  but  of  the 
king.  At  all  events  it  is  frequently  related  that  foreign  nations, 
after  the  death  of  Eoman  kings,  considered  themselves  released 
from  treaties,  as  having  been  concluded  only  with  the  kings ;  and 
though  we  may  say  that  this  was  an  unjust  pretext  for  fiiithlessness. 


2  Lib.  i.  49.     See  Becker  ii.  i.  335,  f. 


1  De  Rep.  vi.  2. 
3  Cic.  De  Rep.  ii.  9. 

*  "Quamquam  ipse  plurima  sacra  obibat."— Liv.  i.  20. 

*  Ibid.  33.  6  B^  i^  s^  ^49^ 


346 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


EEGAL   CONSTITUTION. 


347 


yet  it  could  not  have  been  aUeged  if  the  treaties  had  been  made  in 
the  name  of  the  Senate  and  people."  ^ 

That  treaties  were  made  in  the  name  of  the  people  is  shown  by 
the  example  just  adduced  from  Livy.  The  only  author  who  says 
that  they  were  broken  on  pretence  of  the  death  of  the  king  with 
whom  they  were  made  is  Dionysius ;  and  his  account  is  no  doubt 
only  one  of  those  pragmatical  inventions  with  which  his  history 
abounds.  2  We  may  add  here  that  Becker,  contrary  to  the  opinion 
of  Schwegler,  considers  the  formula  for  declaring  war  as  undoubtedly 
belonging  to  the  regal  times. ^ 

The  magistrate  next  in  power  and  dignity  to  the  king  was  the 
Tribunus  Celerum,  or  commander  of  the  Equites,  whose  office  in 
relation  to  the  king  seems  to  have  been  much  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Magister  Equitum  to  the  Dictator.  He  was  the  representative 
of  the  king  in  military  matters,  and  appears  also  to  have  had  the 
right  of  assembling  the  people  and  holding  the  Comitia.  Thus 
Lhy  :  "Pra3C0  ad  tribunum  celerum,  in  quo  tum  magistratu  forte 
Erutus  erat,  populum  advocavit."  ^ 

As  the  Tribunus  Celerum  was  the  military  representative  of  the 
king,  so  the  Prajfectus  Urbis,  or  Urbi,  represented  liim  in  his  civil 
capacity  during  his  absence  from  the  city.  Denter  Eomulius, 
JS'uma  Marcius,  and  Sp.  Lucretius,  are  respectively  said  to  have 
been  appointed  by  Eomulus,  Tullus  Hostilius,  and  Tarquinius 
Superbus  to  this  office.  (''  J^amque  antea  profectis  domo  regibus,  ac 
mox  magistratibus,  ne  urbs  sine  imperio  foret,  in  tempus  delige- 
batur  qui  jus  redderet,  ac  subitis  mederetur ;  feruntque  ab  Eomulo 
Dentrem  Eomulium,  post  ab  Tullo  Hostilio  Kumam  Marcium,  et 
ab  Tarquinio  Superbo  Spurium  Lucretium  impositos." — Tac.  Ann. 

vi.  11.) 

It  was  a  prerogative  of  the  kings  to  elect  the  Senate.  The  ac- 
count of  Dionysius,^  that  they  were  elected  by  the  tribes  and 
curia3,  the  only  author  who  asserts  this,  is  just  as  false  as  his 
account  of  the  election  of  Eomulus,  and,  as  is  not  unusual  with 
that  writer,  it  is  contradicted  by  other  passages  in  his  own  work. 
Thus,  for  instance,  he  represents  Tarquinius  Priscus  as  admitting 
many  plebeians  into  the  Senate  by  his  own  choice  f  nor  does  he 

1  Rom.  Alterth.  ii.  i.  350. 

2  See  the  passages  cited  here  by  Becker,  and  by  Rubino,  S.  175. 

3  Ibid.  S.  349.  *  Lib.  i.  59. 

«  Lib.  ii.  12.  ®  Lib.  iii.  29,  47;  cf.  iv.  42. 


r4( 


S-i 


mention  that  the  Latin  senators  admitted  by  Tullus  Hostilius 
were  subjected  to  an  election  by  the  curia?.  That  the  senators 
were  appointed  by  an  exercise  of  the  royal  prerogative  appears 
from  many  places  in  Livy  ^  and  Cicero,  and  from  the  testimony  of 
Festus.^ 

AVith  respect  to  the  progressive  increase  in  the  number  of  the 
senators,  authorities  vary.  Livy  states  the  original  number  of 
senators  chosen  by  Eomulus,  before  the  Sabine  union,  to  have  been 
one  hundred,  and  makes  them  consist  of  the  same  number  at  the 
interregnum  which  followed  upon  the  death  of  that  king.^  Cicero 
describes  the  first  Senate  as  having  been  elected  after  the  Sabine 
union,  but  does  not  mention  of  how  many  it  was  composed.  Eestus 
also  gives  the  Eomulean  Senate  at  a  hundred.^  Livy  adds,^  that 
Tarquinius  Priscus  added  a  Lundi'ed  new  members,  who  were  called 
minorum  gentmm.  This  account  agrees  with  that  of  Cicero,  who 
says  that  Tarquin  doubled  the  number  of  senators  j^  and  his  words 
seem  to  show  that  this  was  the  first  increase,  since  he  calls  it  a 
doubling  of  the  j^ristine  number.  It  seems  likely,  tlierefore,  that  a 
Senate  of  one  hundred  had  been  chosen,  as  Cicero  says,  after  the 
Sabine  union,  for  it  is  not  probable  that  the  Eomulean  Senate 
should  have  contained  no  Sabines  at  the  time  of  the  death  of 
Eomulus.  Or  rather,  it  appears  most  probable  that  the  origmai 
Eomulean  Senate,  before  the  Sabine  union,  contained  only  fifty 
members,  which  accords  better  with  the  scanty  population;  and 
that  the  fifty  added  from  the  Sabines,  after  the  union  made  up  the 
number  of  one  hundred  senators.  And  this  seems  to  agree  with  a 
tradition  mentioned  by  Dionysius,  that  only  fifty  Sabines  were 
then  admitted;''  for  as  the  Sabines  seem  to  have  obtamed  at  least 
an  equal  share  of  the  government  w^ith  the  Eomans,  so  it  is  likely 
that  they  comprised  half  of  the  senatorial  body.  Plutarch®  appears 
also  to  have  followed  this  tradition,  but  to  have  added  the  fifty  to 
the  one  hundred  senators  already  constituted ;  so  that  when  the 
Senate  was  doubled  by  Tarquinius  Priscus,  its  number  amounted  to 

1  See  Lib.  i.  8,  30,  35,  49  ;  Cic.  De  Rep.  ii.  8. 

2  "Reges  sibi  legebant  siiblegebantque  qiios  in  coiisilio  publico  habcrent."— 
P.  246.   "Pivx^teriti  Senatores."— Cf.  p.  339,  "  Seiiatores."       ^  Liv.  i.  8,  17. 

•*  "Qiios  initio  Romulus  elegit  centum." — P.  339.  ^  Lib.  i.  35. 

^  "  Duplieavit  ilium  ^?rz's^i«ii??i  numerum  patrum ;  et  antiques  patres 
majorum  gentium  appellavit,  quos  priores  seuteutiam  rogabat ;  a  se  ascites 
minorum." — De  Rep.  ii.  20. 

7  Lib.  ii.  47.  •  8  ^^^^  o. 


^^ 


■j'. 

'i)^ 


348 


HISTORY   OF   THE  KINGS   OF   ROME. 


REGAL  COXSTITUTIOX. 


349 


three  hundred.     But  we  prefer  the  testimony  of  the  Eoman  authors. 
Hence  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  during  the  reigns  of  the  kings 
the  Senate  was  never  more  than  two  hundred  in  number.  It  does  not 
follow,  from  Livy's  account^  of  Brutus  having  filled  up  the  number 
of  the  Senate  to  three  hundred,   that  Tarquinius    Superbus   had 
found  that  number  on  his  accession.     It  was  the  object  of  Brutus 
to  render  the  Senate  powerful  by  its  number  {frequentia),  and  hence 
he  not  only  filled  up  the  vacancies  occasioned  by  Tarquin's  having 
murdered   some   of   the   leading   senators    {2)ri7no7'eii) — for  which 
surely  a  score  or  two  would  be  a  liberal  allowance — biit  he  also 
added  a  fresh  body  of  one  hundred  Patres  Conscripti.    Ad  summam, 
or  numerum,  explere,  does  not  necessarily  mean  to  fdl  up  to  any 
former  number ;  and  if  the  regular  number  of  the  Senate  had  pre- 
viously been  three  hundred,  Livy  would  have  said,  "Patrum  numerum 
explevit  d,di  pristinam  trecentorum  summam,"  or  something  equiva- 
lent.    Livy,  in  describing  the  constitution  of  Servius,  says,  '*!N'ec 
mirari  oportet,  hunc  ordinem,  qui  nunc  est,  j)ost  ejcpletas  quinque  et 
triginta  tribus,''^  &c.,  where  he  cannot  mean  the  filling  up  of  any 
existing  tribes,  but  the  making  of  them  up  to  their  whole  eventual 
number  of  thirty-five,  which  did  not  happen  till  three  centuries 
after  the  time  he  is  speaking  about.    And  it  is  not  at  all  improbable 
that  Dionysius  and  Plutarch  were  led  to  a  statement  of  the  num- 
bers of  the  Senate  at  variance  with  that  of  Livy  and  Cicero,  from  a 
wrong  apprehension  of  the  word  explere.     According  to  Festus,  ^ 
one  hundred  and  sixty-four  senators  were  added  by  the  first  consuls  ; 
but  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  more  than  half  the  Senate  had 
perished.     It  is  more  likely  that  the  sixty-four  replaced  those  who 
had  died  out  naturally  or  been  murdered  by  Tarquin,  and  that  the 
remaining  one  hundred  were  an  entirely  fresh  addition.     For  in 
this  way  all  the  Latin  sources  will  agree ;  namely,  that  the  Senate 
under  Bomulus  comprised  one  hundred  members,  and  under  Tar- 
quinius Priscus  two  hundred ;  about  the  Greek  writers  we  need  not 
trouble  ourselves.     The  raising  of  the  Senate  to  three  hundred  by 
Brutus  we  must  take  on  the  authority  of  Livy  alone,  so  far,  we 
mean,  as  it  was  then  first  made  three  hundred ;  for  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  this  was  its  number  thenceforth. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  functions  of  the  Comitia 
Curiata,  the  only  popular  assembly  at  Rome  till  the  time  of  Servius 
Tullius.     We  must,  however,  avoid  taking  our  description  from  the 

1  Lib.  ii.  1.  2  Lib.  L  43.  ^  p.  254,  ''Qui  patres." 


MS-.?' 


H-- 


■Q' 


•'V   g 


'■■■iV  s 


'•X 


account  of  Dionysius,  who  evidently  made  the  whole  out  of  his 
own  head.  Thus,  that  writer  not  only  tells  us  that  Romulus  sub- 
mitted to  the  decision  of  the  majority  of  the  Senate,  but  also  that 
he  allowed  the  people  the  choice  of  the  magistrates,  the  acceptance 
of  laws,  and  the  decision  respecting  war,  so  often  as  the  king  pro- 
posed the  question  to  them.^  These  privileges,  which  would  have 
reduced  the  king's  prerogative  to  a  minimum,  are  nothing  but 
pragmatic  inventions,  and  we  must  be  guided  respecting  the  early 
constitution  by  what  little  we  can  extract  from  the  Latin  writers. 

It  is  difficult  to  decide  what  were  the  exact  boundaries  between 
the  king's  prerogative  and  the  power  of  the  people.  The  extremest 
opinions  have  been  adopted  on  both  sides.  Some  writers,  like 
Rubino,  have  attributed  to  the  king  an  absolute  authority,  founded 
on  divine  right ;  others,  like  JSTiebuhr,  Gottliug,  and  Puchta,  have 
represented  the  people  as  the  source  of  all  power.  It  appears  to 
us  that  this  irreconcilable  diversity  of  opinion  sprung  from  con- 
founding together  all  the  different  epochs  of  the  regal  period,  and 
that  both  theories  are  partly  true.  When  Becker  says  ^  that  the 
first  is  contradicted  by  the  election  of  the  alternate  kings,  and  by 
the  whole  constitution  of  the  curiae,  he  is  evidently  looking  at  the 
post-Romulean  times.  A  change  was  no  doubt  introduced  by  the 
Sabine  infusion ;  but  we  believe  Romulus  to  have  been  an  absolute 
king.  The  curiro  were  instituted  by  him  more  for  military  pur- 
poses than  anything  else ;  that  the  fighting  men,  who  in  times 
of  peace  were  occupied  with  their  daily  occupations,  might,  on  the 
alarm  of  war,  be  easily  summoned  together  under  their  proper 
leaders.  The  members  of  the  curiae  formed  the  exercitus  which 
Eomulus  was  reviewing  in  the  Field  of  Mars,  whither  he  had  sum- 
moned them  to  a  contioj  at  the  time  of  his  death.^  Cicero  says 
that  Romulus  governed  ^^  singular i  imperio  et  potestate  regia,"**  the 
vis  dominationis  being  tempered  only  by  the  authority  of  the  aristo- 
cracy in  a  quasi-senatus,  which,  however,  in  effect  was  only  a  council. 
("Quo  facto  primum  vidit  judicavitque  idem,  quod  Sparta3  Lycurgus 

1  Dionys.  ii.  14.  Dionysius  adds  that  the  decision  of  the  people  was  not 
final  unless  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  that  is,  by  the  Auctoritas  Patrum  {ovSe 
TovToju  €Xoi/Tt  tt)!/  i^ov(riav  dv^TriX-qTrrov,  &v  firj  Ka\  rf}  $ov\f}  ravra  Sokt}). 
Dionysius  repeats  his  account  of  the  privileges  of  the  people,  iv.  20  and  vi.  66. 

2  Rom.  Alterth.  ii.  i.  355. 

^  "Quum  ad  exercitum  recensendum  concionem  in  Campo  haberet." — 
Liv.  L  16.  4  De  Rep.  ii.  9. 


350 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KIXGS   OF   EOME. 


REGAL  CONSTITUTION. 


351 


paullo  ante  viderat,  singulari  imperio  et  2')otestate  regia  turn  melius 
gubernari  et  regi  civitates,  si  esset  optimi  ciijusque  ad  illam  vi?)i 
dominationis  adjuncta  audoritas.  Itaqiie  hoc  comilio  et  quasi 
senatic  fultus  et  munitus,"  &c. — De  Rep.  ii.  9.)  So  far,  then,  from 
all  springing  from  the  people,  even  the  Senate  had  only  the  power 
of  advising,  and  not  of  determining.  Again,  further  on  we  are 
told  that  Eomulus  «Zo?2e  not  only  founded  tlie  new  people,  but 
also  directed  it  during  his  whole  reign.  ("  Yidetisne  igitur,  imius 
viri  consilio  non  solum  ortum  novum  populum,  neque  ut  in  cuna- 
bulis  vagientem  relictum,  sed  adultum  jam  ct  poone  puberem  ] " — 
Ibid.  11.)  Cicero  seems  to  repeat  the  same  thing  over  and  over 
again  in  order  that  there  may  not  possibly  be  any  mistake. 
Thus,  in  another  passage  he  says,  that  though  Romulus  had  insti- 
tuted a  Senate,  like  Lycurgus,  yet  he  reserved  for  himself  the 
highest  authority,  and  that  the  royal  power,  the  royal  prerogative, 
and  the  royal  name  were  supreme.  (Lycurgus  y/povras  Lace- 
dremone  appellavit,  nimis  is  quidem  paucos,  xxviii.,  cpios  penes 
summam  consilii  voluit  esse,  quum  imperii  surnmam  rex  teneret  : 
ex  quo  nostri,  idem  ilhid  secuti  atque  interpretati,  quos  senes  ille 
appellavit,  nominaverunt  senatum  :  ut  etiam  Romulum,  patribus 
lectis,  fecisse  diximus ;  tamen  excellit  atque  eminet  vis,  potestas  no- 
menque  regium.^' — Ibid.  28.)  And  it  is  plain,  from  the  whole  treatise, 
that  Cicero  considered  a  very  large  share  of  this  power  to  have 
remained  with  the  kings  down  to  the  time  of  their  expulsion  ; 
though  the  introduction  of  an  elective  monarchy,  and  the  policy  of 
Tarquinius  Priscus  and  Servius  Tullius  in  courting  the  people,  must 
have  introduced  some  limitations.  The  former  change,  indeed, 
the  passing  at  once  from  divine  right  to  popular  election,  is  one  of 
the  most  momentous  that  can  be  conceived  in  any  constitution. 

Becker,  holding  fast  to  his  opinion  that  by  pojmlus  we  are  to 
understand  only  patricians  before  the  time  of  Servius,  says,^  "  He 
who  remembers  that  the  populus,  which  alone  can  be  meant  in 
those  early  times,  was  the  ancient  kernel  of  the  people  forming  the 
curiae,  will  be  inclined  to  allow  a  greater  degree  of  independence 
to  this  popiilus,  and  to  regard  the  public  rights  which  it  exercised, 
not  as  a  concession  of  the  king,  but  as  original  rights  resting  upon 
a  contract  or  treaty." 

But  if  it  has  been  shown  that  the  original  2)opidiis  was  not  com- 
posed of  patricians,  then  the  force  of  this  argument  vanishes ;  nor 

^  Rom.  Alterth.  ii.  i.  357. 


m 


m 

-""iff  1  , 


If 


is  the  assertion  of  an  original  contract  confirmed  by  the  passages 
quoted  by  Becker  in  his  note.     For  if  Cicero  says  that  Romulus 
allowed  a  little  power  to  the  people,  this  shows  that  it  depended 
on  his  inclination  and  not  on  a  contract.     Such  are  the  following 
passages  :  "  Imperii  etiam  populo  potestatis  aliquid,  ut  et  Lycurgus 
et  Romulus."— Do  Rep.  ii.  28.      *'Et  ut  advertatis  animum  quam 
sapienter  jam  rcges  hoc  nostri  viderint,  tribuenda  qucedam   esse 
populo."— /6?:cZ.  17.    The  important  concession  on  this  occasion  was, 
that  Tullus  Hostilius  consulted  the  people,  whether  he  should  use 
the  ensigns  of  royalty  !     And  lastly,  another  passage,  which  we 
shall  give  at  full  length  :  ":N"am  in  qua  republica  est  unus  aliquis 
perpetua  potestate,  pra3sertim  regia,  quamvis  in  ea  sit  senatus,  ut 
turn  fuit  Romte,  quum  erant  reges  ;  ut  Spartae,  Lycurgi  legibus  ;  et 
ut  sit  aliqiiod  etiam  p>opuli  jus,  ^^^  M^  ^P^^^  nostros  reges ;  tamen 
illud  excellit  regium  nomen ;   neque  potest  ejusmodi  respublica 
non  regnum  et  esse  et  vocari."— /6tVZ.  23.    Here  the  aliquod  jus  does 
not  seem  to  be  any  very  liberal  allowance,  and  the  2uins   aliquis 
2Hrpetua  potestate,  points,  if  not  to  a  tyrant,  at  all  events  to  an 
absolute  sovereign. 

The  members  of  the  Comitia  Curiata  appear  to  have  been  sum- 
moned to  that  assembly  by  lictors,  while  the  Comitia  Centuriata 
were  summoned  by  the  sound  of  a  horn.^     Each  member  had  an 
equal  vote,  that  is,  the  votes  were  taken  viritiiyi,  or  by  the  head  ;2 
but,  if  we  are  to  believe  Dionysius,^  the  voting  took  place  sepa- 
rately in  each  curiae,  and  thus  the  question  was  carried  by  the 
majority  of  the  thirty  curiae.     It  w\as  determined  by  lot  which 
curia   should  give  its  vote  first,  which  was  hence    called    ?>ri7i- 
cipium.^     Varro  says  that  they  met  in  the  Comitium;^  but  by 
this,  perhaps,  he  only  means  the  leaders  of  the  different  curiae  to 
report  the  result  of  their  proceedings  to  the  king  ;  for  the  Comitium 
certainly    could    not   have   contained   three    thousand  persons,    a 
number  that  would  have  filled  the  whole  Forum. 

It  remains  to  say  a  few  words  about  the  knights,  or  ordo  equester  ; 
though  it  was  not  till  in  later  times  that  it  became  an  ordo.  The 
Equites  appear  to  have  been  first  instituted  after  the  Sabine 
union,  when  100  were  enrolled  from  each  of  the  three  tribes,  or  ten 

1  La?Hus  Felix,  ap.  Gell.  xv.  27.  ^  Liv.  i.  43. 

3  Lib.  ii.  14  ;  iv.  84  ;  v.  6.  **  Liv-  ix.  38. 

5  "  Comitium,  ab  eo,  quod  coibant  eo  comitiis  ciiriatis  et  litium  causae." — 
Ling.  Lat.  v.  155. 


<J 


352 


HISTOEY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


SERVIAN   CONSTITUTION. 


353 


from  each,  of  the  thirty  curia?. ^  For  military  jnirposes  they  seem  to 
have  been  divided  into  ten  troops  of  thirty  each,  consisting  of  ten 
men  from  each  tribe ;  each  ten,  or  decuria,  being  commanded  by  a 
decurio.^  The  whole  corps,  as  we  have  already  shown,  bore  ori- 
ginally the  name  of  Celeres.^ 

The  accounts  of  different  authors  respecting  the  increase  in  the 
number  of  the  knights  vary  so  much  that  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain 
the  truth.  It  is  said  by  some  writers  that  Tullus  Hostilius  doubled 
their  number.  This  rests  on  a  passage  in  Livy,  where  he  says  that 
Tullus  chose  ten  turmse  from  among  the  Albans ;  *  and  if  he  under- 
stood by  turma  the  usual  quantity  of  thirty,  the  number  added  would 
have  been  300,  or  as  many  as  those  originally  instituted.  But,  first, 
it  is  hardly  probable  that  Tullus  should  have  made  as  many  Alban 
knights  as  there  were  Roman,  when  he  appears  only  to  have  added 
about  six  Alban  families  to  the  patrician  order.  Secondly,  so  large 
an  addition  hardly  agrees  with  Livy's  phraseology,  when  he  says  : 
*'  Ut  omnium  ordinum  viribus  aliquid  ex  novo  populo  adjiceretur, 
equitum  decem  turmas  ex  Albanis  legit."  To  add  something  to  a 
body  is  not  the  way  in  which  we  express  the  doubling  of  it.  So 
also  the  words  of  Valerius  Maximus,^  "  Equestrem  ordinem  uberiorem 
reliquit,"  hardly  suit  so  large  an  increase.  We  are  inclined  to  think 
that  Livy  only  meant  ten  decuria?  of  Albans  were  added  in  all, 
or  100 ;  thus  making  the  total  number  of  knights  400.  But  the 
whole  question,  from  the  corrupt  and  varying  nature  of  the  texts, 
is  lost  in  inextricable  confusion ;  it  would  demand  too  much  of  our 
space  to  discuss  it,  especially  as  it  could  not  after  all  be  brought  to 
any  sure  and  satisfactory  conclusion. 

"VVe  will  now  proceed  to  describe  the  new  constitution  established 
by  Servius  Tullius. 

THE   SERVIAN   CONSTITUTION. 

The  following  is  Livy's  account  of  the  Servian  constitu- 
tion : — Out  of  those  who  possessed  a  census,  or  property,  of 
100,000  ases,  or  more,  were  constituted  eighty  centuries,  forty 
of  seniors,  forty  of  juniors.  These  constituted  the  First  Class. 
The  seniores  were  to  be  prepared  to  defend  the  city,  the 

1  Liv.  i.  13 ;  PaulDiac.  p.  55,  Celeros. 

*  Yarr.  Ling.  Lat.  v.  91 ;  Festus,  p.  355,  "Turmam." 


I  fvi    I 


i^ 


^  See  above,  p.  Ill, 


*  Lib.  i.  30. 


^  Lib.  iii.  4,  2. 


juniores  to  go  on  military  service  abroad.     Their  arms  were 
to  be  a  helmet,  a  round  shield  (clipeum),  a  breastplate,  and 
greaves,  all  of  brass.     Such  were  their  defensive  arms ;  their 
offensive  weapons  were  a  spear  and  a  sword.     To  this  class 
were  annexed  two  centuries  of  engineers,  who  were  to  serve 
without  arms,   their  duty  being  to  bring  and  conduct  the 
warlike  machines.     The  Second  Class  had  a  property  of 
from  75,000  to  100,000  ases,  and  contained  twenty  centuries 
of  seniores  and  juniores  (ten  of  each).     Their  arms  were  an 
oblong  shield,  or  scutum,  instead  of  the  clipeum;  the  rest 
being  the  same,  except  the  breastplate.     In  the  Third  Class 
were  enrolled  those  who  possessed  from   50,000  to  75,000 
ases,  with  the  same  number  of  centuries  as  the  preceding  one, 
and  the  same  divisions  as  to  age ;  also  with  the  same  arms, 
except  that  they  had  no  greaves.     The  Fourth  Class  was  to 
have  a  census  of  not  less  than  25,000  ases  :  it  had  the  same 
number  of  centuries ;  but  the  arms  were  different,  consisting 
of  nothing  but  a  lance  and  a  javelin.     The  Fifth  Class  was 
larger,  and  comprised  thirty  centuries  (in  equal  divisions  of 
seniores  and  juniores) :  their  arms  were   slings  and  stones. 
Among  them  w^ere  acccnsi,  or  supernumeraries,  hornblowers 
and  trumpeters,  distributed  into  three  centuries.     The  census 
of  this  class  was  11,000  ases.    The  rest  of  the  population  that 
had  a  less  property  than  this  was  comprised  in  one  century, 
and  not  liable  to  military  service.    Such  was  the  distribution, 
such  were  the  arms  of  the  foot-soldiers.     Of  the  horse  were 
enrolled  Twelve  Centuries,  the  chief  men  of  the  city.     Six 
Centuries  more  were  added  to  the  three  instituted  bv  Ro- 
mulus,  under  the  same  names  with  which  they  had  been 
inaugurated.     Ten  thousand  ases  were  allow^ed  to  them  out  of 
the  public  treasury  to  buy  horses  ;  and,  to  defray  the  expense 
of  their  keep,  certain  widows  were  assessed  to  jiay  two  thou- 
sand ases  a  year.     Thus  the  burthen  of  taxation  was  shifted 
from  the  poor  to  the  rich.     But  the  latter  enjoyed  a  more 
honourable  distinction;  for  votes  were  no  longer  taken  by 
the  head,  so  that  all  should  give  their  suffrages  promiscuously, 
and  that  of  eacli  man  have  the  same  value  and  legal  force ; 
but  certain  degrees  were  made,  .so  that  nobody  should  seem 

A  A 


m' 


354 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS   OF  RO]ME. 


SERVIAN   CONSTITUTION. 


355 


excluded  from  the  right  of  voting,  while  all  the  power  vir- 
tually remained  in  the  hands  of  the  aristocracy.  For  the 
knights  were  first  called,  then  the  eighty  centuries  of  the  first 
clas's  of  foot.  If  these  did  not  agree,  which  seldom  happened, 
then  the  centuries  of  the  second  class  were  called ;  but  the 
votes  were  hardly  ever  taken  so  low  as  to  arrive  at  the  lowest 
class.  Servius  Tullius  also  divided  the  city  into  four  parts 
according  to  the  regions  and  hills  which  were  inhabited. 
These  parts  he  called  tribes,  probably  from  trilmte,  for  the 
same  king  also  established  a  method  of  paying  tribute  in  fair 
proportions,  according  to  the  census  of  each  citizen. 

PtEMARKS.— One  of  the  first  things  that  strikes  us  in  reading  this 
account  of  the  redi.'^tribution  of  civil  rights,  is  the  great  weight 
friven  to  property.     Under  the  Romulean  constitution,  birth  was 
the  chief  title  to  distinction  and  influence ;  but  neither  birth  nor 
money  was  regarded  as  a  passport  to  the  right  of  suffrage,  which 
was  enjoyed  by  the  whole  of  the  original  populus.     In  this  view 
the  Servian  constitution  must  be  regarded  rather  as  a  curtailment 
than  an  extension  of  popular  rights;  for,  though  it  gave  the  suf- 
frage to  a  vast  number  of  plebeians  who  had  not  before  enjoyed  it,^ 
yet  from  the  division  into  classes  and  centuries,  and  the  method  of 
voting  by  centuries,  instead  of  viritim,  or  by  the  head,  as  formerly, 
the  privilege  was  little  more  than  nominal.     For  though,  under  the 
Komulean  constitution,  it  was  the  votes  of  the  thirty  curies  that 
were  ultimately  taken,  yet  all  the  citizens  had  previously  voted 
in  them,  and  there  was   no   distinction  between   one  curia   and 
another,  except  by  lot.     But  in  the  Servian  constitution  the  first 
class,  with  the  knights,  contained  more  centuries  than  all  the  rest 
put  together  ;  and  hence  we  may  readily  believe  Livy's  account 
that  the  vote  was  but  rarely  exercised  by  the  lowest  classes.     The 
only  part  of  the  plehs  which  could  have  gained  anything  was  its 
wealthier  members.     And  this  leads  us  to  infer  that  a  large  class  of 
wealthy  plebeians  had  now  arisen,  who  had  most  probably  enriched 
themselves  by  trade  and  commerce.     Since  the  founding  of  Ostia 
by  Ancus  Marciiis,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  maritime  com- 
merce of  the  Romans  must  have  made  great  progress ;  a  fact  indeed 
which  is  testified  by  the  treaty  concluded  with  the  Carthaginians 
in  the  first  year  of  the  Republic. 


•{». 


'tit 


•ti- 


'  -ft. 


"''iv' 


■*'«• 
'.«' 


"0- 


Si 


The  constitution  of  Servius,  as  Schweglcr  has  pointed  out,  ap- 
pears to  have  had  three  objects  in  view ;  the  first  military,  the 
second  political,  the  third  financial.  We  place  the  military  object, 
or  the  formation  of  an  army,  first,  as  the  most  important.  For  the 
people  still  formed  the  army.  Every  citizen  was  a  soldier,  and 
there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  separate  military  profession.  Even 
his  civil  rights  sprung  from  his  capability  of  bearing  arms  just  as 
they  did  in  the  time  of  Romulus.  For  as  the  five  classes  into  whicli 
the  people  were  divided  formed  the  entire  army,  so  the  centuries 
into  whicli  these  classes  were  subdivided  formed  the  voting  popula- 
tion ;  and  their  votes  were  of  more  or  less  value  in  proportion  to 
the  higher  or  lower  place  which  they  occupied  in  the  army  :  the 
first  class,  which,  with  the  knights,  formed  the  flower  of  it,  and 
whose  arms  constituted  them  the  main  line  of  battle,  enjoying 
almost  a  virtual  monopoly  of  the  suffrage.  And  that  the  vote  de- 
pended on  capacity  for  military  service  appears  from  the  fact  that 
those  who  had  passed  the  age  of  sixty  years,  and  were  considered 
as  no  longer  capable  of  bearing  arms,  lost  their  vote. 

It  should  be  observed  here  that  Livy  makes  the  whole  number  of 
the  centuries  194,  whilst,  according  to  the  accounts  of  Cicero^  and 
Dionysius,2  there  were  only  193.  There  are  some  other  differences 
in  the  account  of  Cicero,  which,  as  the  text  is  corrupt,  we  shall  not 
attempt  to  reconcile.  With  regard,  however,  to  the  number  of  the 
centuries,  193  seems  more  probable  than  194;  since,  being  an 
uneven  number,  it  would  give  a  majority  in  the  event  of  opinions 
being  equally  divided.  Hence,  perhaps,  we  should  adopt  the  con- 
jecture of  Sigonius,  that  the  accensi,  cornicines,  and  (ubichies  formed 
only  two  centuries  instead  of  three.^ 

For  the  convenience  of  a  synoptical  view,  we  shall  here  insert 
tables  of  the  arrangement,  both  in  its  military  and  its  civil 
character,  according  to  the  account  of  Livy. 


AS  AN  ARMY. 


Class  1. 


Knights  or  horsemen 


Centuries. 
.     18 


1  DeRep.  ii.  22.  ^  Lib.  iv.  IS. 

5  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  Credibility,  &c.  i.  490,  note. 

A  A  2 


i  'f 


<■■■ 


s5ji?jiifeiiiiis*' 


356  HISTORY   OF   THE    KINGS   OF   ROME. 

FOOT   SOLDIERS. 

Centuries. 

Assessment  at  100,000  ases  and  upwards. 

Seniors  (above  45  years  of  age  to  60)  .     .     .     .     40 

Juniors  (under  45  years) 40 

Defensive  arms :  a  helmet,  round  shield,  breastplate,  and 
greaves,  all  of  brass.  Offensive  :  a  spear  and  a  sword.  The  juniors 
to  serve  in  the  field,  the  seniors  to  defend  the  city. 

Engineers 2 

Class  2. 

Assessment  from  75,000  to  100,000  ases. 

Seniors *0 

Juniors ^0 

Arms :    the  same  as  the  first  class,  except  that  they  had  no 
breastplate,  and  a  large  wooden  buckler  instead  of  a  shield. 

Class  3. 

Assessment  from  50,000  to  75,000  ases. 

Seniors 10 

Juniors 10 

Arms  :  the  same  as  the  second  class,  only  without  the  greaves. 

Class  4. 

Assessment  from  25,000  to  50,000  ases. 

Seniors 10 

Juniors 10 

Arms  :  only  a  spear  and  a  javelin. 

Class  5. 

Assessment  from  11,000  to  25,000  ases. 

Seniors 15 

Juniors 15 

Arms  :  slings  and  stones. 

In  this  class  were  ranked  accensi,  trumpeters, 
and  hornblowers 2 

All  citizens  below  the  lowest  assessment  of  the  fifth  class,  or 
11,000  ases,  were  exempt  from  military  service,  and  counted  as  one 
century. 


.  -1 


it' 


■.'*■ 


.'V 
.4  4. 


SERVIAN   CONSTITUTION.  357 

The  following  summary  will  show  the  relative  political  power  of 

the  different  classes  with  regard  to  the  right  of  voting. 

Centuries. 

Knights 18 

First  Class 80 

Engineers 2 

Second  Class 20 

Third  Class 20 

Fourth  Class 20 

Fifth  Class 30 

Accensi,  &c 2 

Proletarians,  or  below  the  lowest  census  ...  1 


193 


Cicero  1  makes  only  70  centuries  in  the  first  class,  and  1  of 
engineers,  amounting  thus,  with  the  knights,  to  89,  out  of  the 
193  j  so  that,  as  he  says,  if  8  out  of  these  should  join  the  first  89, 
these  would  have  a  majority  :  for  89  -f  8  =  97  ;  and  193  —  97  =  96. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that  the  Servian  constitu- 
tion must  not  be  considered,  as  it  might  appear  at  first  sight,  a 
mere  tiraocracy. 

The  possession  of  a  certain  degree  of  wealth  was  necessary  to  the 
formation  of  a  good  soldier.  First,  because  he  was  thus  enabled  to 
provide  himself  with  the  necessary  arms  and  accoutrements,  which 
were  the  more  expensive  according  to  the  higher  rank  which  he 
held.  Secondly,  because  it  enabled  him  to  give  his  leisure  to  the 
service,  which,  as  the  soldier  then  received  no  pay,  could  not  be 
done  by  those  who  lived  by  trades  and  handicrafts.  Thirdly,  as 
the  military  profession  was  no  mercenary  one,  and  as  the  soldier's 
stimulus  was  purely  the  noble  one  of  fighting  for  his  home  and 
country,  it  was  natural  that  those  who  had  the  greatest  stake  in  it 
should  devote  themselves  with  the  utmost  ardour  to  its  service. 

That  the  Servian  organization  was  more  particularly  regarded  by 
its  founder  and  his  contemporaries  as  a  military  one,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  name  classis  given  to  each  of  its  divisions,  and 
more  emphatically  to  the  first  division.  For  classis,  which  in  later 
times  was  used,  in  the  affairs  of  war,  only  of  a  fleet,  signified  in 
the  earlier  periods  an  army.     Thus  Paulus  Diaconus  :  "  Procincta 

^  De  Rep.  ii.  22. 


■/f 


358 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   EOME. 


SERVIAN   CONSTITUTION. 


359 


classis  dicebatur,  quum  exercitus  ductus  erat  Gabino  ciuctu  coH- 
fostim  pugnaturus.     Yetustius  euim  fuit  multitudinem  hominum, 
ciuam  navhim,  classem  appellari."  ^     Heuce  in  an  old  law  of  one  of 
the  kings,   quoted  by  Fcstus  :    "  Cujus  auspicio  classe  prociucta 
opima  spolia  capiuntur,  Jovi  Feretrio  darier  oporteat,"  -  &c.  ^    The 
first  division  was  called  absolutely  classis,  without  the  addition  of 
prima,  and  its  members  dassici,  which  indicates,  as  Schwegler  has 
observed/  that  the  army,  properly  so  called,  consisted  of  the  heavy 
armed  soldiers.     The  same  tiling,  perhaps,  might  be  inferred  from 
its  numbers  ;  for  tlie  first  class  contained  almost  as  many  centuries 
as  the  four  others  put  together  :  and  though  it  is  true  that  we  arc 
not  to  take  centuria  as  denoting  the  exact  quantity  of  100  men— 
for  indeed  the  last  century  must  have  comprised  many  thousand, 
and  the  centuries  of  the  seniores,  containing  only  the  men  aged 
from  forty-five  to  sixty  years,  must  necessarily  have  been  smaller 
than  those  of  the  juniors— yet,  on  the  whole,  and  among  the  classes, 
wo  may  suppose  that  some  proportion  was  observed.     For  the  last 
century  of  the  capite  censi  were  not  liable  to  military  service,  were 
not  therefore  in  any  c/a^^6iX— though  Dionysius  erroueously  makes 
them  a  sixth  class— and  therefore  its  number  was  immaterial; 
while,   on  the  other  hand,  it  must  have  been  necessary  that  the 
number  of  the  fighting  men,  and  the  force  of  each  particular  arm, 
should  have  been  pretty  accurately  known  :  how  else  should  a  general 
make  his  calculations  ?     Companies  of  a  hundred  men,  moreover, 
formed  the  usual  divisions  of  the  Roman  legion  ;  whence  the  nauie 
of  centurio   for   the   commander  of  one.      It   might   perhaps  be 
objected  to  this  view.  How  then  should  the  very  richest  class  of  the 
population  have  furnished  so  large  a  body  in  proportion  to  the 
other  classes]     To  this  w^e  reply  that  the  possession  of  100,000 
ases,  the  lowest  limit  for  admission  into  this  class,  must  have  con- 
stituted only  a  very  moderate  property.     We  knoAV  not  how  much 
higher  the  property  of  individuals  may  have  risen  ;  some  may  have 
possessed  more  than  ten  or  twenty  times  that  sum ;  and  thus  we 
have  a  very  ample  margin  upwards,  while  downwards  it  is  fixed 

^  P.  225,  Procinda  classis. 

2  P.  189,  Opima  sjyolia.     The  corrupt  text  says  it  was  a  law  "  compclU 

re^is,"  for  which  Augustiiius  suggested  the  emendatiou   "  Pompilii   regis.'" 

But  the  subject  of  opima  spolia  would  rather  suggest  the  emendation  of 

**Romuli  regis."     And  Numa  in    his   capacity   of   king   is   seldom   called 

Pompilius.  ^  S.  744. 


'''M' 


■  .-■* 


,  1 


and  certain ;  and  the  property  of  the  very  last  class  is  only  about 
ten  times  less  than  that  of  the  first.  If  all  below  a  census  of 
11,000  ases  were  considered  as  proletarians,  if  the  class  immediately 
above  them,  having  a  property  from  that  sum  up  to  the  amount  of 
25,000  ases,  could  only  afford  to  serve  with  slings  and  stones,  then 
it  cannot  be  supposed  that  100,000  ases  represented  any  very  ex- 
traordinary sum.  And  thus  our  notions  of  the  Servian  constitution 
as  a  plutocracy  must  be  very  considerably  modified. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  quite  agree  with  Schwegler,  when  he  says  ^ 
that  the  centuries  were  not  divisions  of  the  army,  but  of  the  host 
of  voters,  and  had  no  regular  number.     For,  first,  as  the  prima 
dassis  formed  the  heavy  armed  troops,  or  main  line  of  battle,  they 
do  not  by  any  means  form  too  gi'eat  a  proportion  when  compared 
with  the  other  four  classes  of  lighter  armed  soldiers  ;  while,  if  the 
strength  of  the  centuries  of  this  class  is  to  be  very  much  reduced, 
or  those  of  the  lower  classes  very  much  increased,  the  lighter  armed 
troops  would  be  far  too  numerous.     Again,  besides  the  reasons  we 
have  already  suggested  to  the  contrary,  it  would  have  been  a  most 
crying  and  unbearable  injustice,  if,  for  instance,  a  century  in  the 
first  class  was  composed  of  only  20  men,  and  in  the  last  class,  say 
of  200,  and  yet  that  each  should  have  a  like  vote.     Xor  is  the  last 
century  of  many  thousand  proletarians  any  argument  against  this  ; 
because  they  did  not  bear  the  burthen  of  war,  while  those  in  the 
classes  w^ere  all  liable  to  them.     Schwegler  adverts  to  the  following 
passage  of  Cicero  in  the  support  of  his  view  :  "  Illarum  autem  sex 
et  nonaginta  centuriarum  in  una  centuria  turn  quidem  plures  cen- 
sebantur,  quam  pa^ne  in  prima  classe  tota."  -     But  Cicero  is  there 
evidently  alluding  to  the  century  of  proletarians,  whom  he  has  just 
named ;  and  it  would  be  absurd  to  think  that  any  single  century 
of  one  of  the  classes  should  have  borne  such  a  proportion  to  the 
whole  first  classis.     Taking  all  the  centuries  at  an  average  of  100 
men,  this  would  give  an  army  of  nearly  20,000  men,  a  very  probable 
number.     If  to  this  number  we  add  7,000  proletarians,  we  shall 
have  a  total  adult  male  population  of  27,000;  and  the  whole  popu- 
lation,  including  women   and  children,  might    amount   to    about 
80,000,  without  including  slaves.     According  to  the  account  of 
Dionysius,^   who,   however,    we   will   allow,    is   not  a  very  good 
authority,  the  census,  like  our  modern  ones,  was  a  regular  enumera- 
tion of  the  ivhole  population,  and  the  men  were  obliged  to  give  in 

1  S.  748.  2  D^.  p^ep.  u.  22.  ^  jj], 


0.  IV.  15. 


360 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


SERVIAN    CONSTITUTION. 


361 


the  names  of  their  wives  and  children.  According  to  this  calcula- 
tion, the  population  would  have  increased  about  sevenfold  since 
the  time  of  Romulus.  And  so  Livy  states  that  the  number  of  the 
citizens  at  the  first  Servian  census  was  80,000  ;  adding,  however, 
that  Fabius  Pictor  says  that  this  was  the  number  capable  of  bearing 
arms ;  an  evident  absurdity.^  IN'othing  is  so  easy  of  exaggeration' 
as  numbers.  Those  who  have  traced  the  outline  of  the  Servian 
walls  and  of  those  of  Yeii,  the  great  rival  of  Eome,  within  a  two 
hours'  ride  of  her,  will  see  that  the  territory  could  not  have  sufficed 
to  maintain,  nor  the  walls  to  shelter,  the  enormous  hosts  of  which 
Dionysius  -  and  others  speak. 

We  have  assumed  that  the  sums  set  down  as  the  census  of  the 
different  classes  represent  property  and  not  income ;  and  this,  we 
believe,  is  the  view  of  all  the  modern  authorities  who  have  written 
upon  the  subject.  Some  have  gone  further,  and  assumed  that 
the  census  of  each  class,  though  valued  in  money,  represented 
in  fact  real  property.  This  is  the  view  of  Mommsen,  who  con- 
siders that  the  value  of  a  jugerum  of  land  was  5,000  ases  ;  that 
thus  the  census  of  the  fifth  class  was  the  old  lieredmm  of  two 
jitgera  ;  and  that  consequently  no  lower  census  was  possible  ;  that 
of  those  who  had  no  heredium,  only  the  heads  could  be  counted.' 
There  may  possibly  be  some  truth  in  this  view ;  but  it  rests  merely 
on  inference,  and  is  not  supported  by  authority.  It  seems,  too,  to 
clash  with  Dr.  Mommsen's  theory  that  Rome  was  a  great  com- 
mercial city  ;  for  commerce  cannot  be  conducted  without  capital  in 
specie  ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  a  rich  capitalist  should 
have  been  excused  the  burthens  of  war,  or  counted  as  a  proletarian, 
if  he  had  not  invested  his  money  in  the  purchase  of  land. 

That  the  original  organization  of  the  people  by  Servius  was  that 
of  an  array,  appears  also  from  the  fact  that,  even  when  they  as- 
sembled in  their  Comitia  for  civil  business,  they  appeared  in  military 
array,  and  were  called  exercitus,  or  exercitus  urbanus.  Thus,  in  the 
Commentarii  Consulares,  quoted  by  Varro  :  "  Accensus  dicit  sic  : 
Omnes  Quirites,  ite  ad  conventionem  hue  ad  Judices.  Dein 
Consul  eloquitur  ad  exercitum :  Impero  qua  convenit  ad  Comitia 
centuriata."  ^  Hence  properly  only  those  magistrates  who  had  the 
imperium  could  assemble  the  exercitits ;  but  the  qurestor  also  ap- 
pears to  have  had  the  power  of  assembling  them  in  Comitia  in  cases 


1  Liv.  i.  44. 


»  Lib.  iv.  15.  3  Rom.  Tribus,  S.  Ill,  115,  &c. 

<  Liiig.  Lat.  vi.  SS. 


i 
\ 


..-*-. 


of  capital  indictments  ;  as  we  learn  from  the  formalities  observed 
in  the  indictment  of  Trogus,  related  by  Varro  ;"^  but  this  magistrate 
seems  first  to  have  been  obliged  to  obtain  the  auspices  from  the 
prietor  or  consul.  These  instances  are  of  course  taken  from  the 
republican  times ;  but  the  military  order  which  continued  to  be 
then  observed  must  have  been  deri-ved  from  the  original  institution. 
From  this  military  character  also  it  was  that  the  Centuriate  Comitia 
met  without  the  walls  of  the  city,  since  it  was  not  lawful  for  a 
military  command  to  be  exercised  within  them.^  But  it  may  easily 
be  imagined  that  in  process  of  time  the  institution  lost  more  and 
more  of  its  military  character,  and  at  last  assumed  a  purely  civil 
one.  Hence  Dr.  Arnold  remarks  :  *'  Whenever  we  find  any  details 
given  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Comitia,  or  of  the  construction  of 
the  army,  we  perceive  a  state  of  things  very  different  from  tliat  pre- 
scribed by  the  constitution  of  Servius.  Hence  have  arisen  the 
difficulties  connected  with  it ;  for,  as  it  was  never  fully  carried  into 
effect,  but  overthrown  within  a  very  few  years  after  its  formation, 
and  only  gradually  and  in  part  restored  ;  as  thus  the  constitution 
with  which  the  oldest  annalists,  and  even  the  law  books  which 
they  copied,  were  familiar,  was  not  the  original  constitution  of 
Servius,  but  one  bearing  its  name,  while  in  reality  it  greatly  dif- 
fered from  it ;  there  is  a  constant  confusion  between  the  two,  and 
what  is  ascribed  to  the  one  may  often  be  true  only  when  understood 
of  the  other."  ^  On  which  we  will  remark  that  if  this  be  so,  it  at 
least  shows  that  the  charge  so  often  brought  against  the  narrative 
of  Livy  will  not  here  apply ;  namely,  that  it  is  concocted  from  the 
usages  of  later  periods,  and  transferred  to  that  of  the  kings. 

It  is  impossible  exactly  to  define  the  political  functions  and 
privileges  assigned  to  the  Centuriate  Comitia  by  Servius,  as  we  have 
no  notices  of  their  operation  till  the  time  of  the  Republic.  The 
institution  of  them,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  a  final 
reform  in  the  mind  of  that  king.  From  some  commentaries  which 
he  left  behind  him,  he  appears  to  have  contemplated  the  establish- 
ment of  the  consular  form  of  government ;  and  we  are  told  that  it 

^  Ling.  Lat.  vi.  91,  scqq. 

8  Gell.  XV.  27.  When  \vc  find  in  Varro,  therefore  {he.  cit.),  "Collegam 
roges,  ut  comitia  edicat  do  Rostris,  et  argentarii  tabernas  occlndant,"  the 
shutting  up  of  the  bankers'  shops  was  not  ordered  because  the  Comitia 
assembled  on  the  Forum,  but  because  business  was  not  to  detain  people  from 
proceeding  to  the  Campus  Martins. 

^  Hist,  of  Rome,  vol.  i.  p.  77. 


362 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


SERVIAN  TRIBES  AND   REGIONS. 


363 


-was  according  to  tlie  directions  contained  in  them  that  the  first  two 
consuls  were  appointed.^  If  we  may  judge  of  the  intentions  of 
Servius  by  the  hiter  practice,  the  Comitia  Centuriata  were  to 
enjoy  the  right  of  electing  magistrates,  of  accepting  laws  proposed, 
of  acting  as  a  court  of  appeal,  and  judging  capital  cases.  They  do 
not  appear  to  have  obtained  the  right  of  deciding  whether  war 
should  be  declared  till  the  consulship  of  C.  Servilius  Ahala  and 
L.  Papirius  Mugillanus,  in  B.C.  427  j^  and  we  may  therefore  con- 
clude that   Servius  had  continued  to  entrust  this  prerogative  to 

the  Senate. 

The  division  of  the  city  into  four  tribes,  by  Servius,  seems  to 
have  been  made  for  financial  purposes.  It  was  merely  a  topogra- 
phical arrangement,  not  one  of  race,  like  the  tribes  of  Eomulus ; 
thouf^h  these  also,  as  we  said,  were  connected  with  an  agrarian 
division,  and,  as  we  learn  from  Livy,  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
number  and  distribution  of  the  centuries.  Thus,  for  instance, 
members  of  every  classis  and  of  every  century  may  have  dwelt 
together  promiscuously  in  the  different  regions  called  trihus ;  it 
was  only  when  they  were  summoned  to  assemble  as  an  army,  or  for 
the  Comitia,  that  each  man  fell  into  his  proper  class  and  century. 
And  here  at  their  own  homes  they  paid  the  war  tax,  or  tribute, 
that  was  lai<l  upon  them,  according  to  the  census  at  which  they 
were  rated.^  Dionysius,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  is  at  variance  with 
the  Latin  authorities,  and  represents  the  tribute  as  paid,  not  singidU, 
as  Yarro  says,  or  viritim,  but  by  centuries  3  *  but  his  testimony  is 
not  to  be  accepted  against  that  of  Varro  and  Livy. 

The  Servian  division  of  the  city  into  four  regions  is  a  somewhat 
obscure  subject ;  but  we  know  the  names  of  them  from  Yarro,*'^  and 
therefore,  approximately,  their  boundaries.  The  first  region  was  the 
Suburana,  the  second  the  Esquilina,  the  third  the  Collina,  the 
fijurth  the  Palatina.    The  chief  portion  of  the  first  region  was  occu- 

1  Liv.  i.  60.  2  iljiJ.  iv.  30. 

3  ''Qnadrifariam  enim  urbe  divisa  legluiiibus  collilnisqiie,  fpii  habit abantur, 
partes  eas  tribiis  appellavit  ;  ut  ego  arbitror,  ab  tributo  :  nam  ejus  quoque 
icqualiter  ex  censii  conferendi  ab  eodem  inita  ratio  est.  Neqne  \ik  tribus  ad 
oenturiarum  distributionem  niimermiiqne  quicquam  pertiimere." — Liv.  i.  43. 
But  as  Livy  derives  tlie  name  of  tribus  from  trihutum,  so,  xicc  versa,  "Wino 
derives  tributum  from  tribus:  "Tributum  dictum  a  tribuT)us,  quod  ea  pecunia, 
«pi?e  populo  imperata  erat,  tributim  a  singulis  pro  portionc  census  exigebaUir." 
— Ling.  Lat.  v.  181.     Both  authors,  however,  agree  in  the  main  point. 


.ST" 


.  4 


■V  ! 


vV 


'*! 


*  Lib.  iv.  19. 


^  Ling.  Lat.  t.  45,,  seqn. 


pied  by  Mons  Ca3lius  and  the  adjoining  Cieliolus ;  it  embraced  also 
the  Carina)  and  the  Subura.    The  second  region  comprised  the  Esqui- 
lina and  its  two  tongues  Opx^ius  and  Cispius.     It  was  here  that 
Servius  fixed  his  residence.^     The  Yiminal  aiid  Quirinal  hills  formed 
the  third  region,  and  the  Palatine  the  fourth ;  the  last  including 
the  Germalus  and  Yelia.     In  this  division  the  Capitoline  and  the 
Aventine  are  striking  omissions.     One  might  be  tempted  to  con- 
clude, from  the  passage  in  Livy  before  cited,  that  they  were  omitted 
because  they  were  not  inhabited.     But  we  have  already  seen  that 
the  Latin  populations  were  located  on  the  Aventuie — though  per- 
Imps  the  greater  part  were  proletarians  ;  and  the  Capitol  appears  to 
have  been  at  least  partially  inhabited,  though  no  doubt  it  was 
chiefly  occupied  by  temples.     From  the  account  in  Yarro  it  would 
appear  that  the  distribution  of  the  regions  was  regulated  according 
to  the  locality  of  certain  chapels,  or  sacraria,  called  Argei,  either 
twenty-four  or  twenty-seven  in  number,  supposed  to  be  memorials 
of  an  Argive  colonization  of  Eome,  and  which  may,  at  all  events, 
serve  to  confirm  the  traditions  respecting  an  early  Greek  settlement 
in  this  district.     The  whole  subject  is,  however,  involved  in  great 
obscurity ;  and,  as  it  is  antiquarian  rather  than  historical,  the  reader 
Y\lio  may  be  curious  to  know  more  about  it  is  referred  to  what  the 
author  has  said  in  another  work.- 

On  the  Servian  constitution  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  remarks  :  ^  ''  It  is 
highly  probable  that  ancient  records  of  the  constitution  of  classes, 
by  which  the  census  and  the  suffrage  were  both  regulated,  existed 
in  the  office  of  the  censors  ;  and  it  may  be  assumed  as  certain  that 
this  system  was,  at  a  comparatively  early  period,  traced  to  Servius. 
Eut  there  is  nothing  to  authorize  us  in  supposing  that  an  authentic 
contemporary  account  of  this  division  of  classes  had  been  preserved. 
The  account  followed  by  Cicero  differs  materially  in  the  numerical 
arrangement  of  the  centuries  from  that  followed  by  Dionysius  and 
Livy ;  and  even  the  accounts  of  Dionysius  and  Livy,  though  sub- 
stantially equivalent,  differ  in  some  subordinate  points.  The 
assessment  for  the  first  class  is  stated  by  Dionysius  and  Livy  at 
100,000  ases  ;  but,  according  to  Pliny,*  the  sum  was  110,000; 
while  Festus^  and  Gellius^  fix  it  at  120,000  and  125,000.     Livy 

1  Liv.  i.  48  ;  Solin.  i.  25. 

"  See  Dr.  Smith's  Diet,  of  Aucifiit  Geography,  vol.  ii.  p.  733. 

3  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  500.  ^  H.  N.  xxxiii.  13. 

^  The  author  should  rather  have  said  Paul.  Diac.  p.  113,  iiifra  chissem. 

6  Noct.  Att.  vii.  13. 


364 


HI8T0RY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


states  the  assessment  of  the  fifth  class  at  11,000  ases ;  Dionysius 
at  12,500;  Cicero  and  Gellius  at  15,000.^  These  discrepancies 
negative  the  idea  of  an  official  record,  derived  from  the  time  of 
Servius  himself :  and  they  rather  point  to  later  accounts,  referring 
to  different  periods,  and  perhaps  deficient  in  precision.  That  there 
may  have  been  some  historical  ground,  resting  on  a  faithful  official 
tradition,  for  connecting  the  name  of  Servius  with  an  arrangement 
of  the  census,  is  possible ;  but  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
believing  him  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  matured  and  com- 
plex system  which  is  presented  to  us  as  his  work,  or  for  supposing 
that  the  authorship  of  it  is  ascribed  to  him  in  any  other  sense 
than  that  in  which  Romulus  is  said  to  have  founded  the  Senate, 
ISTuma  the  ceremonial  law,  and  Tullus  Hostilius  the  law  of  the 
Fetiales." 

That  is  to  say,  Servius  is  only  the  eponymous,  or  imaginary, 
founder  of  the  second  Roman  constitution,  which  lasted  so  many 
centuries,  just  as  Romulus,  according  to  the  sceptical  critics,  is 
nothing  but  an  imaginary,  or  invented,  founder  of  the  Senate, 
Kuma  of  the  ceremonial  law,  and  Tullus  Hostilius  of  the  Fetial 
law.  For  this  is  the  grand  point  on  which  we  must  fix  our  atten- 
tion, that  the  regulations  of  Servius  were  a  complete  political 
revolution ;  in  comparison  of  which  any  minor  details,  and  espe- 
cially about  figures,  sink  into  insignificance. 

Now  the  great  novelty  of  the  constitution  established  by  Servius, 
the  fundamental  idea  of  the  revolution  which  lie  effected — and  a 
more  striking  and  important  one  can  hardly  be  imagined — was  the 
substitution  of  a  property  qualification,  instead  of  the  previous  one 
of  birth  and  hereditary  right,  for  admission  to  civil  privileges  and 
their  reciprocal  obligations.  For  this  purpose  it  became  necessary 
to  institute  the  census;  that  is,  the  enrolment  of  the  entire  body 
of  citizens,  classed  according  to  their  property ;  a  thing  which  had 
not  been  done  before,  because  it  would  have  had  no  meaning  or 
value  before.  Kow  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  admits  "  that  there  may  have 
been  some  historical  ground  for  connecting  the  name  of  Servius- 
with  an  arrangement  of  the  census ; "  but  denies  that  there  is  any 
"  sufficient  reason  for  believing  him  to  have  been  the  author  of  the 
matured  and  complex  system  which  is  presented  to  us  as  his  work." 
That  is,  he  admits  that  Servius  may  have  invented  the  census,  the 
very  foundation  of  the  later  Roman  constitution,  while  he  denies 

1  Cic.  De  Rep.  ii.  22  ;  Gell.  Noct.  Att.  xiv.  1.0,  s.  10. 


v. 


1+  ■  ■ 


■tf 


SIR    G.    C.    lewis's   remarks. 


365 


that  he  had  anything  to  do  with  the  superstructure,  without  which 
the  census  would  have  had  neither  value  nor  meaning  !  Which  is 
just  as  reasonable  as  to  suppose  that  a  man  should  invent  a  key  for 
a  clock  or  watch,  without  having  the  slightest  idea  of  the  machine 
to  which  it  was  to  be  applied.  Reasoning  like  this,  which  betrays 
its  own  fallacy,  proceeds  from  a  settled  determination  to  depreciate 
the  civilization  and  intelligence  of  the  regal  period,  and  therefore 
assumes  that  it  must  have  taken  a  much  longer  period,  perhaps 
some  further  centuries,  to  produce  the  *' matured  and  complex 
system  "  of  the  constitution  ascribed  to  Servius. 

How  long  the  Servian  constitution  lasted  in  its  original  form  we 
know  not ;  but  we  know  that  the  next  reform  was  effected  by  the 
mixture  of  two  of  its  elements ;  by  blending  the  functions  of  the 
Comitia  Centuriata  with  those  of  the  Comitia  Tributa.  But  there  is 
not  the  slightest  trace  of  either  of  these  assemblies  having  been 
first  instituted  in  the  republican  times.  Some  writers  have  inferred 
from  a  passage  in  Livy,^  in  which  the  tribm  2)roerogativa  is 
mentioned  in  the  ekction  of  consular  tribunes,  that  the  mixture 
alluded  to  must  have  taken  place  as  early  as  B.C.  396,  consequently 
before  the  burning  of  the  city,  and  only  about  a  century  and  a  half 
from  the  first  establishment  of  the  Servian  constitution.  But  the 
election  of  consuls  and  military  tribunes  by  the  Comitia  Centuriata 
is  mentioned  after  this  period,  in  B.C.  387. ^ 

It  is  impossible  to  see  what  motive  the  historians  of  Rome  could 
have  had  for  the  process  imputed  to  them  of  transferring  back  to 
Servius  a  constitution  that  was  not  matured  till  a  long  while  after- 
wards. And  if  it  be  merely  meant  that  genuine  and  authentic 
records  of  its  working  were  extant  only  in  these  later  times,  still 
they  were  quite  justified  in  using  these  for  their  description  of  it, 
if  they  were  satisfied  that  no  alterations  had  been  made  in  the 
fundamental  principles.  Nor  could  a  constitution  which  substituted 
a  property  franchise  for  a  birth  franchise  have  been  matured  by 
degrees,  because  they  are  things  of  a  wholly  different  kind,  and 
admit  not  of  degrees ;  and  therefore  the  substitution  of  one  for  the 
other  must  have  been  abrupt  and  sudden.  Moreover,  the  historians 
knew  that  the  consuls,  from  the  first,  had  been  elected  in  the 

1  Lib.  V.  18. 

^  "Comitia  centuriata,  quibus  consules  tribunos(iiie  militares  creatis,  iibi 
auspicate,   nisi  ubi  assolent  fieri  possunt  ?  " — Ibid.  52.     It  might  be  said, 
however,  that  this  passage  occurs  in  a  rhetorical  speech,  and  that  the  former 
ne  must  have  been  taken  from  a  record. 


366 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


.\  'I 


THE   LUSTRUJNf. 


307 


Comitia  Centuriata,  and  therefore  the  new  constitution  must  have 
existed  before  the  expulsion  of  the  kings.  For,  if  the  consuhar 
elections  had  ever  been  transferred  from  the  Comitia  Curiata  to  tlie 
Comitia  Centuriata,  so  important  a  change  could  hardly  have  passed 
without  record,  and  the  first  consuls  are  expressly  said  by  Livy  to 
have  been  elected  by  the  Comitia  Centuriata.  And  as  the  plan  of 
the  consular  government  is  even  said  to  have  been  laid  down  in 
the  Commentarii  of  Servius  Tullius,^  it  is  only  an  arbitrary  asser- 
tion to  say  that  ''there  is  nothing  to  authorize  us  in  supposing  that 
an  authentic  contemporary  account"  of  the  alterations  made  by 
Ser\dus  had  been  preserved. 

The  ancient  writers  are  not  only  unanimous  in  referring  the  new 
constitution  to  Servius ;  they  also  agree  as  to  all  the  essential 
political  features  of  it.  Cicero,  Livy,  and  Dionysius  all  tell  us 
that  the  people  were  divided  into  five  classes,  with  a  century  of 
proletarians ;  except  that  Dionysius,  from  his  imperfect  knowledge 
of  Latin,  calls  this  last  division  also  a  classisj  and  therefore  makes 
six.  They  also  agree  in  the  fact  that  the  first  class,  with  the 
knights,  possessed  almost  a  monopoly  of  the  political  power ; 
though  there  is  some  difference  between  Cicero  and  the  historians 
respecting  the  distribution  of  the  centuries.  But  first :  Cicero  was 
giving  a  mere  sketch  of  Roman  history,  or  rather  a  dissertation 
upon  it,  and  did  not  perhaps  think  it  ^vorth  while  to  consult  doru- 
ments  in  order  to  be  perfectly  accurate ;  and,  secondly,  Cicero's 
text  is  here  hopelessly  corrupt.  Nevertheless,  he  gives  a  total  of 
193  centuries,  like  the  other  writers;  for  Livy's  statement,  as  we 
have  said,  should  be  reduced  to  that  number  from  194.  The  dif- 
ference in  the  census  of  the  various  classes,  which  after  all  is  not 
very  great,  may  have  arisen  in  a  great  measure,  as  Bockli  suppoFjos, 
from  the  different  estimate  of  money  in  different  times. 

We  will  now  return  to  the  course  of  the  history. 

THE    FIRST    LUSTRUM — THE     SERVIAN    WALLS — THE    LATIN 

HEADSHIP. 

Servius,  having  completed  the  census,  which  he  had  pressed 
on  by  promulgating  a  law  with  penalties  of  imprisonment 
and   death  against   those  who  evaded   enrolling  themselves 

^  "  Duo  consules  iiide  comitiis  ceuturiatis  a  prsefecto  iirbis  ex  commentarii.^ 
Servii  Tullii  creati  sunt." — Li  v.  i.  60. 


i 


^'' 


in 


he  issued  a  proclamation  that  all  the  Eoman  citizens,  both 
horse   and   foot,  should   assemble  in  the   Campus   Martins 
at   daybreak,  every  one  in   his   proper   century.     There  he 
purified  the  whole  army,  by  offering  up  the  expiatory  sacri- 
fices called  snovctmo'ilia,  the  victims  being  a  swine,  a  sheep, 
and  a  bull.      This  ceremony  was  called  the  lustrum  condi- 
turn,  because  it  was  the  finishing  act  in  taking  the  census. 
At  this  lustrum  80,000  citizens  are  said  to  have  been  included 
in  the  census.     Fabius  Pictor,  the  most  ancient  of  our  writers, 
adds  that  this  was  the  number  of  those  capable  of  bearing 
arms.     It  seemed  necessary,  therefore,  to  enlarge  the  boun- 
daries of  the  city,  so  that  it  should  be  able  to  contain  so  great 
a  multitude;  and  with  this  view  Servius  added  two  hills,  the 
Quirinal  and  Yiminal ;  and  made  a  further  increase  by  taking 
in  the  Esquiline.     And  in  order  to  confer  some  dignity  and 
importance  on  this  last  district,  he  fixed  his  residence  there. 
He  also  enclosed  the  city  in  a  wall,  and  partly  with  an  aggcVj 
or  rampart  and  fosse.    Thus  it  became  necessary  to  extend  the 
pomcerium ;  which  is  etymologically  defined   to  be  postmoi' 
rium,  or  space  behind  the  walls.     But  in  reality  it  is  rather  a 
space  all  round  the  walls,  both  within  and  without,  which  in 
ancient  times  the  Etruscans  left  when  building  their  cities, 
marking  out  its  boundaries  with  terminal  stones,  and  con- 
secrating it  by  augury ;  so  that  in  the  inside  the  buildings 
should  not  adjoin  the  wall,  which  at  present  generally  touch 
it ;  and  that  on  the  outside  a  space  should  be  left  free  from 
cultivation.     This  space,  which  could  neither  be  built  upon 
nor  ploughed,  the  Eomans  called  j^omcerium,  not  rather  because 
it  was  behind  the  wall,  than  because  the  wall  was  behind  it. 
And  in  enlarging  a  city  these  consecrated  boundaries  were 
carried  forwards  in  proportion  as  the  circuit  of  the  wall  was 
to  be  extended. 

The  dignity  of  the  state  being  thus  augmented  by  the 
size  of  the  city,  and  all  the  citizens  being  prepared  by  the 
regulations  before  recounted  either  for  peace  or  war,  Servius 
laid  schemes  for  increasing  his  empire  by  means  of  counsel 
rather  than  arms  ;  and  at  the  same  time  to  add  something  to 
the  splendour  of  the  city.     At  that  time  the  Temple  of  the 


368 


HISTOKY    OF   THE    KINGS    OF   ROME. 


Ephesian  Diana  was  in  liigli  renown  ;  which,  according  to 
report,  had  been  built  by  the  cities  of  Asia  at  their  common 
expense.     Servius,  ^vhen  in  company  with  the  chief  men  of 
the  Latins,  whose  society  and  friendship  he  sedulously  culti- 
vated, both  publicly  and  privately,  was  always  extolling  the 
benefits  of  union  and  a  league  under  the  auspices  of  the  gods  ; 
till  by  perseverance  and  reiteration  of  the  same  arguments,  he 
at  length  persuaded  the  Latin  peoples  to  build  at  Eome,  in 
conjunction  with  the  Eomans,  a  temple  to  Diajia.     This  was 
nothing  less  than   an   acknowled<jjment   that   Eome  was   at 
the  head  of  Latium ;  a  matter  w^hich  had  been  so  often  con- 
tested with   arms.      The   Latins,    indeed,    from   their   many 
unsuccessful  struggles,  seemed  to   have   abandoned  all  care 
about  the  matter.     But  a  singular  accident  seemed  to  present 
to  a  Sabine  a  chance  of  recovering  the  lost  supremacy.     A 
certain  head  of  a  family  in  the  Sabine  country  had  a  bull 
born  on  his  farm  of  wonderfid.  size  and  beauty ;  and  indeed 
the  horns,  which  during  many  generations  were  hung  up  in 
the  vestibule  of  the  Temple  of  Diana,  served  as  a  monument 
of  the  miracle.     The  bull  was  regarded,  what-  indeed  it  was, 
as  a  prodigy;  the  matter  was  taken  up  by  the  soothsayers 
and  prophets,  who  proclaimed  in  their  verses  how  that  city 
would   have  the   supreme   command  wdiose   citizens  should 
sacrifice  the   bull  to   Diana.     The   Sabine,  when   a  proper 
opportunity  for  such  a  sacrifice  offered  itself,  drove  the  bull 
to  Eome,  led  it  to  the  Temple  of  Diana,  and  placed  it  before 
the  altar.     But  the  Eoman  priest,  struck  by  the  size  of  the 
victim,  Avhich  was  well  known  by  report,  and  remembering 
the  oracle  about  it,  thus  addressed  the  Sabine :  "  What,  my 
friend,  are  you  going  to  make  an  impure  sacrifice  to  Diana  ? 
Will  you  not  wash  yourself  in  the  stream  ?     The  Tiber  iiows 
there  at  the  bottom  of  the  valley."     The  countryman  w^as 
etruck  with  these  religious  scruples ;  and  being  desirous  that 
the  sacrifice  should  be  properly  made,  so  that  the  promised 
event  of  the  prodigy  should  be  realized,  he  immediately  w^ent 
down  to  the  Tiber.     Meanwhile  in  his  absence  the  Eoman 
sacrificed  the  bull,  to  the   great   delight  of  the  king  and 
citizens. 


THE   SERVIAN    CITY. 


361) 


Ait 


't 


Eemarks. — As  Servius  promulgated  a  law,  with  capital  penalties, 
to  enforce  the  accomplishment  of  the  census,  we  may  infer  that  the 
king  still  retained  absolute  legislative  power.  For  such  a  law 
would  hardly  have  been  proposed  to  the  Comitia  Curiata,  then  the 
only  popular  assembly ;  as  the  patricians  were  averse  to  the  new 
constitution,  as  well,  perhaps,  as  the  majority  of  the  plebeian  members 
of  the  curia3,  whom  it  would  in  a  great  measure  deprive  of  their 
exclusive  privilege. 

It  is  rather  puzzling  to  conceive  how,  according  to  Livy's  account, 
Servius  should  have  added  the  Quirinal  Hill  to  the  city  ;  because, 
as  Ave  have  seen,  that  hill  must  have  been  long  since  occupied  by 
the  Sabine  portion  of  the  population.  Strabo^  and  Dionysius-  say 
that  he  only  added  the  Viminal  and  the  Esquiline,  about  which 
there  is  no  difficulty.  Perhaps  the  best  way  in  wliicli  we  can 
interpret  Livy's  meaning  is,  that  the  Quirinal  was  now,  for  the  first 
time,  surrounded  with  a  wall  or  fortification  ;  while  the  Capitoline, 
the  Palatine,  the  Aventine,  and  the  Coelian,  were  more  or  less 
fortified.  A  considerable  part  of  the  Quirinal  in  its  north-eastern 
extension  may,  however,  have  now  been  added  ;  while  the  Viminal, 
and  particularly  the  Esquiline,  were  new  additions.  This  view 
would  derive  some  confirmation  if  we  should  consider  that  Servius's 
part  of  the  work  was  more  peculiarly  the  cigger^  or  rampart, 
which  runs  at  the  back  of  those  three  hills,  through  which  may 
have  been  effected  an  enlargement  of  the  boundaries,  as  marked  out 
in  the  original,  and  perhaps  partly  executed,  design  of  Tarrpiinius 
Priscus. 

That  the  pomoerium  of  the  Servian  city  should  have  been  inau- 
gurated with  Etruscan  rites  is  a  very  natural  circumstance,  when 
we  consider  that  the  walls  were  planned  by  the  elder  Tarquin,  to 
whom  these  rites  were  suggested  by  his  Etruscan  education,  as  well 
as  by  his  Etruscan  wife,  Tanaquil.  Ihit  that  they  were  adopted  at 
the  foundation  of  the  Palatine  city,  though  asserted  by  Tacitus,  may 
admit  of  some  doubt.  By  this  inauguration  of  the  pomoerium,  the 
whole  city  became,  as  it  were,  a  ternplum.  Another  proof  of  foreign 
infiuence  through  the  Tarquinian  dynasty,  which  serves  to  confirm 
the  truth  of  the  history,  is  the  regulation  of  Servius  by  which  cer- 
tain widows  were  taxed  for  the  keep  of  the  knights'  horses.  For  we 
learn  from  Cicero  that  the  same  thing  used  to  be  done  at  Corinth  ^ 


1  Lib.  V.  p.  234. 


2  Lib.  iv.  ^?y, 


-  Do  Rep.  ii.  20. 
15  B 


.'..J 


•  ■v.. 


370 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ROMAN   HEGEMONY   OF  LATIUM. 


371 


and  Servius  no  doubt  took  the  idea  from  the  history  and  traditions 
of  the  originally  Corinthian  family  into  which  he  had  been  adojited. 

The  Avails  of  Servius  thus  enclosed  the  seven  hills  which  came 
to  be  regarded  as  forming  the  real  Septimontium ;  namely,  the 
Palatine,  the  Capitoline,  the  Quirinal,  the  Yiminal,  the  Esquiline, 
the  CaBlian,  and  the  Aventine.  But  the  original  Septimontium, 
the  traditions  connected  with  which  were  celebrated  by  the  festival 
called  Septimontiale  Sacrum,  embraced  a  different  list  of  places, 
some  of  which  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  hills ;  namely,  Palatium, 
Yelia,  Fagutal,  Caelius,  Germalus,  Oppius,  and  Cispius.  The  sub- 
ject is  an  obscure  one,  as  the  chief  authority  concerning  it,  which  is 
a  passage  of  Antistius  Labeo  in  Festus,^  mentions,  besides  these 
places,  the  Subura,  which  was  certainly  not  a  hill ;  while  Paul  the 
Deacon  also  inserts  the  Subura,  and  omits  the  Ca3lian.2  But  as  we 
learn  from  Varro  ^  that  the  Ca'lian  Hill  constituted  the  principal 
part  of  the  Suburan  region,  and  as  it  seems  to  have  had  some 
of  the  Argive  chapels,  which  were  the  principal  objects  of  these 
divisions,  it  cannot  well  be  omitted. 

The  account  of  the  manner  in  which  Servius  obtained  the  con- 
sent of  the  Katin  peoples  to  the  erection  of  a  temple  to  Diana  on 
the  Aventine,  in  token  of  Pome's  headship,  shows  that  the  con- 
quest of  Latium  by  Tarquinius  Priscus  could  not  have  been 
absolute.  From  the  scanty  notices  of  these  times  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  we  must  be  content  to  take  the  general  outline  of 
events.  By  attempting  to  fill  up  the  details,  writers  like  Dio- 
nysius  of  Halicarnassus  have  brought  discredit  on  the  early  Eoman 
history ;  but  there  is  no  good  reason  for  believing  that  the  mam 
outline  is  invented. 

Respecting  the  Temple  of  Diana  on  the  Aventine,  as  a  sign  of 
Roman  hegemony,  Schwegler  remarks  :*  "This  proceeding  of  Servius 
Tullius  does  not  accord  very  well  with  what  we  are  told  about 
Tarquinius  Priscus  having  reduced  all  Latium;  but  the  policy 
which  he  adopted  appears  quite  clear  if  the  representations  of  the 
historians,  according  to  which  Tullus  Hostilius  had  already  made 
pretensions  to  the  supremacy  in  Latium,  which  Tarquinius  Priscus 
made  good  by  arms,  are  anachronistic  inventions.     And  that  they 

1  P.  348  (Miill.). 

2  P.  341,  ibid.    Some  MSS.,  however,  have  Celio  Oppio. 


y-  f. 


:Vf; 


i-i 


3  Lib.  V.  46. 
^  S.  730,  flf. 


See  more  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Anc.  Geog.  ii.  734. 


are  so  cannot  be  doubted  :  since  the  larger  and  more  important 
cities    of    Latium— as   Tusculum,    Gabii,   Aricia,    Ardea,    Tibur, 
Praeneste — were  certainly  not  at  that  time  subject  to  the  Romans, 
as,  with  regard  to  Gabii  and  Tusculum,  the  subsequent  history 
shows ;  but  there  existed,  independently  of  Rome,  a  Latin  federa- 
tion, which  held  its  diets  at  the  grove  and  fountain  of  Ferentina. 
Thus  Cincius  (in  Fcstus,  p.  241,  Prcetor) :   '  Alba  diruta  usque  ad 
P.  Decium  Murem  cos.  populos  Latinos  ad  caput  Ferentina?,  quod 
est  sub  Monte  Albano,  consulere  solitos,  et  imperium  communi  con- 
silio  administrare.'     With  this  Latin  confederation,  to  which  Rome 
had  hitherto   been   a    stranger,   and  for   the  most  part  hostilely 
opposed  to  it,  Servius  Tullius  concluded  a  treaty,  much  on  the 
same  grounds  as  Sp.  Cassius  did  afterwards,  by  which  he  entered 
upon  a  confederate  relationship  with  it ;  ^  for  that  this  only  was 
the  aim  of  his  endeavours  appears  plainly  enough  from  his  proceed- 
ings and  behaviour  as  represented  by  tradition.     A  recognition  of 
the  Roman  hegemony  lay  not,  at  all  events,  as  the  Roman  historians 
erroneously  represent,    in    the    building   of   the  Dianium  on   the 
Aventine,  at  the  expense  of  the  League.     There  were  in  Latium 
many  of  these  common  resorts  of  worship  and  holy  places  of  the 
League — as  the  Dianium  in  the  grove  of  Aricia  ;  another  on  the 
hill  called  Corne  ;   while  in  Lavinium   and    Ardea  were  Aphro- 
disia,  or  temples  of  Venus,  which  served  the  same  purpose  ^ — yet 
these  did  not  give  the  places  where  they  were  found  any  political 
ascendency.     We  should  have  reason  lor  believing  this  only  if  the 
Latian  diets  had  been  transferred  to  Rome  ;  but  these  were  sub- 
sequently held,  as  before,  in  the  grove  of  Ferentina.     According  to 
all  indications,  it  was  the  younger  Tarquin  who  first  procured  for 
Rome  the  hegemony  over  the  Latins." 

On  this  we  will  remark  that  the  history  does  not  pretend  that 
the  larger  and  more  important  towns  of  Latium  were  subject 
(zinterthan)  to  the  Romans.  The  very  method  in  which  it  is  related 
that  Servius  acted  in  order  to  procure  the  building  of  the  temple 
at  Rome  shows  that  he  could  exercise  no  command  over  the  Latins  ; 
that  he  effected  his  object  by  persuasion.  The  history  tells  us  that 
Tarquinius  Priscus  defeated  the  Latin  peoples,  not  that  he  subjected 
or  reduced  their  cities,  as  Tullus  had  reduced  and  destroyed  Alba 
Longa,  or  Ancus  Marcius  Politorium,  Tellena3,   and  Ficana  :  for 

1  Liv.  viii.  4. 

2  Cat.  ap.  Prise,  p.  629  ;  Plin.  H.  N.  xvi.  91  :  Strabo,  v.  .S,  5. 

BB  2 


!*3 


372 


IIISTOI^Y   OF   TIIK   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


though  Tarquiuius  Priscus  captured  several  of  their  cities,  he  then 
accorded  them  a  peace.  The  place  where  the  diet  was  held  was  in 
no  city  at  all,  but  in  a  grove ;  and  therefore  proves  nothing.  Yet 
if  there  was  a  league,  there  must  have  been  a  nominal  head,  or 
metropolis,  of  it :  and  if,  after  the  fall  of  Alba,  it  was  not  at  Eome, 
what  other  place  was  it  ? — that  is,  from  the  time  of  Servius  ;  for 
before  that  period  the  honour  had  often  been  contended  for  in  the 
field  :  "^  a  passage,  by  the  way,  which  shows  how  fragmentary  are 
the  accounts  of  these  wars ;  though  that  circumstance  should  not 
discredit  the  notices  that  have  escaped  the  obliterating  hand  of 
time.  Schwegler  has  mutilated  the  passage  of  Cincius  in  Festus, 
by  cutting  off  its  head  and  tail.  In  its  integrity  it  runs  thus  : 
"  Albanos  rerum  potitos  usque  ad  Tullum  regem :  Alba  deinde 
dmita  usque  ad  P.  Dccium  Murem  cos.  populos  Latinos  ad  caput 
Ferentinae,  quod  est  sub  iVIonte  iUbano,  consulere  solitos,  et  impe- 
rium  communi  consilio  administrare  :  itaque  quo  anno  Eomanos 
imperatores  ad  exercitum  mitterc  oporteret  jussu  nominis  Latini 
complures  nostros  in  Capitolio  a  sole  oriente  auspiciis  operam  dare 
solitos ;  ubi  aves  addixissent,  militem  ilium  qui  a  communi  Latio 
missus  esset,  ilium  quem  aves  addixerant,  Prajtorem  salutare 
solitum,  qui  eam  provinciam  optineret  Prsetoris  nomine." 

Now  we  learn  from  the  suppressed  part  of  this  passage  that  the 
Latins  were  accustomed  to  send  to  Rome  for  generals  to  command 
their  armies  when  wanted ;  which  is  a  pretty  good  proof  that  she 
had  succeeded,  as  we  are  told  by  Livy,  to  the  leadership  or  hege- 
mony of  Latium.  Such  a  general,  we  are  told,  was  called  "  Praetor," 
the  name  of  a  chief  magistrate  among  the  Latins,  and  in  military 
affairs  so  called  because  he  "  went  before,"  or  led,  the  army.^ 

The  assertion  that  Tarquinius  Priscus  made  good  by  arms  his  pre- 
tensions to  the  supremacy  over  Latium  is  not  to  be  found  in  Livy, 
though  Dionysius  says  something  to  that  effect;"^  and  therefore  the 
accounts  of  that  sovereign's  and  of  Tullius's  transactions  with  the 
Latins  are  not  anachronistic  inventions.  The  assertion  that  Servius 
only  made  such  a  treaty  with  the  Latins  as  admitted  Pome  into 
their  confederation  is  an  ''  invention  "  of  Schwegler's,  unsupported 
by  a  single  scrap  of  authority.     Is  it  likely  that  Pome,  which  had 

^  "  De  quo  totiens  armis  certatum  fuerat. " — Lib.  i.  45. 
2  "In  re  jnilitaYi prcctor  dictus,  qui  pr?eiret  exercitui." — Van*.  L.  L.  v.  87. 
^  raura  oe  Tronjcrauras  (Ivai  <pL\ovs   'Pufxa.lwv  Koi  a'v/j.,udxovs,  airavTa  trpd.rrovTas 
off  a  t.v  iKiivoi  Kf.K^voiffii'. — Ijib.  iii.  54. 


■''\ 
'S  - 


,  > 


KOMAN    HEGEMONY    OF   LATIUM. 


o  i  o 


"i  i> 


>*5  ".- 


;.v\  - 


.4' 


so  long  contended  for  the  supremacy,  should  sue  to  enter  the  Latin 
League  merely  as  a  subordinate  member,  and  thus  of  course  place 
herself  under  the  hegemony  of  some  other  city,  which  city — however, 
cannot  be  named  ?  The  passage  in  Livy  to  which  Schwegler  refers 
proves  directly  the  reverse  of  what  he  asserts.  It  is  shown  by  the 
S})eech  of  Annius  that  for  two  hundred  years,  and  therefore,  as 
Schwegler  says,  since  the  reign  of  Servius,  the  Latin  forces  had 
been  under  the  control  of  Rome  :  "  Sin  autem  tandem  libertatis 
desideiium  mordet  animos,  si  fcedus  est,  si  societas  aicjuatio  juris 
est,  si  consanguineos  nos  Romanorum  esse,  quod  olim  pudebat, 
nunc  gloriari  licet,  si  socialis  illis  exercitus  is  est,  quo  ailjuncto 
dupliccnt  vires  suas,  quem  secernero  consules  ab  se  bellis  propriis 
sumendis  ponendisquc  nolint ;  cur  non  omnia  aiquantur  ]  cur  non 
alter  a  Latinis  consul  datur  ?  ubi  2mrs  virium,  ibi  et  imjjerii jyars  est  ? 
Est  quidem  nobis  hoc  per  se  baud  nimis  amplum,  quippe  conce- 
dentibus,  Romam  caput  Latio  esse.  .  .  .  Quis  dubitat  exarsisse  eos, 
qiium  2>lus  ducentoram  annorum  morem  solverimus  ?  "  c^'c. 

[N'ow  this  agrees  with  what  Livy  had  before  said,  that  Rome  had 
obtained  the  hegemony  of  Latium  in  the  reign  of  Servius.  It  also 
agrees  with  the  suppressed  part  of  the  passage  from  Festus,  that 
the  Latins  were  accustomed  to  receive  their  generals  from  the 
Romans.  It  matters  not  whether  the  Latins  had  several  places 
for  their  assemblies  :  the  Dianium  on  the  Aventine  was  the  only 
temple  common  both  to  Romans  and  Latins ;  and  being  built  at 
their  joint  expense  at  Rome,  which  claimed  the  hegemony,  was  a 
clear  confession  that  Rome  was  '*  caput  rerum." 

Livy's  intimation  that  the  plan  of  this  temple  was  suggested  by 
that  of  Diana  at  Ephesus  shows  that  the  Romans  had  a  knowledo-e 
of  what  was  going  on  in  Greece,  which  they  may  have  derived  from 
the  cities  of  ^lagna  Gra3cia  or  from  the  Massaliots.  The  latter  way 
is  perhaps  the  more  probable  one,  as  the  Massaliots  appear  to  have 
paid  particular  devotion  to  the  Ephesian  Artemis,  and  their  friend- 
ship with  the  Romans  has  been  already  recorded.  The  wooden 
image  of  the  Aventine  Diana  is  said  to  have  been  a  copy  of  that  at 
Ephesus.^  The  time  of  the  foundation  of  the  temple  at  Ephesus 
cannot  be  accurately  mentioned,  but  it  was  certainly  in  existence 
in  the  time  of  Croesus,  who  is  supposed  to  have  ascended  the  throne 
in  B.C.  5G0,  and,  according  to  the  reduced  chronology,  Servius  Tullius 
began  to  reign  in  B.C.  531.     The  story  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  bull 

^  Strubo,  iv.  ],  4,  acq. 


374 


HISTOHY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


CONSPIRACY   AGAINST   SERYIUS. 


to 


is  of  course  one  of  tliose  superstitious  legends  wliicli  the  priests 
delighted  to  propagate.  In  such  stories  we  are  not  to  look  for  con- 
sistency, and  therefore  it  would  be  needless  to  incxuire  why  the 
sacrificer  should  be  represented  as  a  Sabine  instead  of  a  Latin.  A 
temple  of  Diana,  erected  in  token  of  a  Latin  confederacy,  would 
naturally  enough  have  been  placed  upon  the  Aventine,  where  the 
populations  of  the  conquered  Latin  towns  had  been  settled. 
According  to  one  very  improbable  definition,  even  the  name  of  the 
Aventine  was  derived  from  the  advent,  or  concourse,  of  men  which 
it  occasioned.^  Servius  also  erected  several  temples  to  Fortune,  in 
commemoration  probably  of  the  favours  which  she  had  showered 
on  him.  One  of  these  is  known  to  have  been  in  the  Forum 
Boarium;  another  was  outside  the  city,  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Tiber.^ 

We  will  now  conclude  the  history  of  Servius. 


CONSPIRxU:!Y  AGAINST  AND   MURDER  OF  SERVIUS. 

The  title  of  Servius  to  the  crown  seemed  to  be  confirmed 
by  his  long  wearing  of  it.  Nevertheless,  hearing  that  the 
youthful  Tarquin  sometimes  gave  out  that  he  reigned  without 
the  assent  of  the  people,  he  determined  to  confirm  his  title  by 
a  le^ral  act.  With  which  view  he  first  conciliated  the  ^ood- 
will  of  the  plebsy  by  dividing  among  them  the  territory  taken 
from  the  enemy ;  and  then  he  proposed  to  the  people  a  reso- 
lution in  the  usual  form,  whether  they  wished  and  com- 
manded that  he  should  reign.  And,  on  taking  the  votes,  he 
w^as  declared  king  with  a  greater  unanimity  than  any  of  his 
predecessors.  This,  however,  did  not  diminish  the  hopes  of 
Tarquin  of  obtaining  the  crown:  nay,  it  rather  seemed  to 
afford  him  an  opening.  For  he  seized  the  occasion  still  more 
violently  to  denounce  Servius  to  the  Patres,  and  of  thus 
increasing  his  party  in  the  Senate-house ;  for  he  perceived 
that  the  division  of  land  among  the  plebeians  was  quite  con- 
trary to  their  wish.  Tarquin  was  himself  ardent  and  violent 
enough,  and  his  restless  mind  was  still  further  stimulated  by 

^  "  Alii  Adveiitinum,  ab  adveiitu  lioiniiium,  quod  commune  Latinorura  ibi 
Diana  templum  sit  constitutum." — Varro,  L.  L.  v.  43.  ^  Ibid.  vi.  16. 


I 


his  wife  Tullia.     Hence  the  Koman  palace  became  the  scene 
of  tragic  crime  ;  so  that  liberty  came  at  last  all  the  riper  and 
more  welcome  from  the  disgust  which  the  Romans   had  of 
their  kings,  and  a  reign  wickedly  acquired  was  the  last  which 
they  endured.     The  Lucius  Tarquinius  of  whom  I  speak— 
wliether  he  were  the  son  or  grandson  of  King  Tarquinius 
Priscus  is  not  clear ;  but,  if  I  should  trust  the  greater  number 
of  authors,  I  should  call  him  the  son— had  a  brother,  Aruns 
Tarquinius,  a  youth  of  gentle  disposition.     These  two  young 
men,  as  I  have  already  related,  had  married  daughters  of 
King  Tullius,  who  also,  like  their  husbands,  were  very  different 
in  temper.     It  seems  to  have  been  through  the  good  fortune 
of  the  Eoman  people,  in  order  that  the  reign  of  Servius  might 
be  prolonged,  and  that  he  might  have  time  to  establish  his 
constitution,  that  the  couple  whose  tempers  were  so  ferocious 
were  not  in  the  first  instance  united.     But  the  violent  Tullia 
was  filled  with  vexation  at  seeing  that  her  husband  possessed 
not  the  same  ambition,  the  same  audacity,  as  herself    Her 
thoughts   now  centred   entirely   on   her   brother-in-law:   he 
alone  was  worthy  of  admiration;  he  alone  a  man,  and  of 
royal  blood :  and  she  despised  her  sister,  who,  having  such  a 
husband,  was  not  his  counterpart  in  female  daring.     A  simi- 
larity of  temper  brought  the  violent  pair  together,  for  there  is 
a  strange  affinity  in  evil ;  but  it  was  the  woman  who  was  the 
originator  of  all  the  mischief.     In  the  clandestine  interviews 
which  she  had  with  her  brother-in-law  she  gave  vent  to  all 
manner  of  contumelies,  abusing  her  husband  to  his  brother, 
her  sister  to  the  man  who  had  married  her.     Better  it  were, 
she  said,  that  she  should  be  a  widow,  and  he  a  single  man, 
than  be  united  with  an  unequal  yokefellow,  and  languish 
through  the  cowardice  of  another.     Had  the  gods  given  her 
that  husband  wlio  was  worthy  of  her,  she  might  soon  see  her- 
self in  possession  of  the  rule  now  held  by  her  father.   By  such 
discourses  she  soon  filled  the  youth  with  her  own  temerity. 
Lucius  Tarquinius  and  the  younger  Tullia,  after  making  them- 
selves free  to  contract  another  marriage  by  murders  which 
followed  quickly  on  each  otlier,  were  wedded,  rather  with  the 
tacit  acquiescence  than  the  approbation  of  Servius. 


37t) 


IIlSTOliY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   HOME. 


MUKDER   OF   SEllVIUS. 


377 


After  this  every  day  seemed  to  render  tlie  old  age  of 
Tiillius  more  unbearable,  his  reign  more  hateful.  From  one 
crime  his  daughter  began  to  contemplate  another;  she  suf- 
fered not  her  husband  to  rest  day  or  night,  lest  their  former 
murders  should  seem  fruitless  for  want  of  perpetrating  a 
parricide.  It  was  not,  she  whispered,  her  former  liusljand, 
with  whom  she  had  served  without  complaining,  who  had 
been  wanting  to  himself;  it  was  he  who  was  wanting  to 
himself,  who  before  he  had  accepted  her  hand  had  thought 
himself  worthy  to  reign ;  had  remembered  that  he  was  the 
son  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  and  preferred  liaving  the  kingdom 
to  hoping  for  it.  "  If  thou  art  lie  to  whom  I  believe  myself 
married,  I  recognise  thee  as  a  husband,  but  also  as  a  king ; 
otherwise  things  are  changed  for  the  worse,  for  we  have  now 
not  only  cowardice,  but  crime  also.  Wilt  thou  not  set  to 
work  ?  Thou  hast  not  to  seek  a  foreign  kingdom,  like  thy 
fatlier,  as  if  thou  earnest  from  Corinth  or  Tarquinii.  Thy 
household  gods,  the  bust  of  thy  fiither,  thy  royal  palace,  and 
the  throne  which  stands  in  it,  and  thy  very  name  of  Tarquin, 
create  and  proclaim  thee  king.  Or,  if  thou  hast  not  com^age 
for  this,  why  dost  thou  frustrate  tlie  liopes  of  the  city  ?  why 
show  tliyself  as  a  royal  prince  ?  Betake  thyself  hence  to 
Tarquinii  or  Corintli ;  return  to  thy  original  obscurity,  for 
thou  art  liker  thy  brother  than  thy  father." 

With  such  reproaches  did  she  instigate  the  youth;  nor 
could  she  find  any  rest  when  she  reflected  that  Tanaquil,  a 
foreign  woman,  could  achieve  so  much  as  to  procure  two  con- 
tinuous reigns,  first  for  her  husband,  and  then  for  her  son-in- 
law  ;  while  she,  though  bom  of  royal  lineage,  had  no  power 
in  such  matters.  Instigated  by  this  female  fury,  Tarquiu 
went  about  and  solicited  the  senators,  chiefly  those  of  the 
Gentes  Minores.  He  admonished  them  of  his  father's  benefits 
—solicited  a  return  for  them ;  the  younger  ones  he  enticed 
with  gifts ;  and  thus  he  formed  everywhere  a  party,  as  well 
by  vast  promises  as  by  incriminating  the  king.  At  length, 
when  the  time  for  action  seemed  to  have  arrived,  he  broke 
into  the  Forum  with  a  band  of  armed  men ;  and  there,  while 
all  were  paralysed  with  terror,  he  took  his  seat  on  the  royal 


#1* 


4^ 


If  -j 


throne  before  the  Curia,  and  directed  the  Fathers  to  be  sum- 
moned by  a  herald  to  the  senate-house,  "  to  Knig  Tarquinius." 
They  immediately  assembled  ;  some  of  them  having  l)een  pre- 
pared for  the  event  beforehand,  others  through  fear  lest  tlieir 
non-appearance  should  prove  injurious  to  them,  as  well  as 
from  astonishment  at  the  novelty  and,  as  it  were,  miracle  of 
the  thing,  and  thinking  that  all  was  over  with  Servius.  Then 
Tarquin  inveighed  against  the  king,  beginning  his  abuse  from 
his  very  origin  :  "  That  the  son  of  a  female  slave,  himself  a 
slave,  should  have  seized  the  throne  by  a  woman's  gift,  after 
the  lamentable  and  undeserved  death  of  his  fatlier,  without 
any  interregnum  or  holding  of  the  Comitia,  without  the  vote 
of  the  people  or  the  authority  of  the  Fathers.  Such  a  king,  so 
born,  so  appointed,  the  benefactor  of  the  basest  order  of  men, 
to  which  indeed  he  belonged  himself,  out  of  his  hatred  of  the 
nobility  of  others,  had  divided  the  land  of  which  he  had 
deprived  the  })atiicians  among  the  lowest  of  the  low ;  had 
shifted  those  burthens,  which  before  were  borne  in  common, 
upon  the  necks  of  the  chief  men  in  the  state;  had  instituted 
the  census  with  a  view  to  hold  up  the  fortunes  of  the  rich  as 
an  object  of  envy,  and  a  source  whence,  at  his  own  good 
pleasure,  he  might  draw  to  benefit  the  needy." 

In  the  midst  of  tliis  speech  arrived  Servius,  who  had  been 
summoned  by  a  trembling  messenger,  and  from  the  vestibule 
of  the  Curia  he  exclaimed  with  a  loud  voice :  "  How  now, 
Tarquin  ?  Wliat  audacity  is  this  ?  How  hast  thou  dared  to 
assemble  the  Fathers,  and  seat  thyself  on  my  throne,  while 
I  am  still  alive  ? "  To  which  Tarquin  ferociously  replied  :  "  I 
occupy  my  father's  seat.  The  son  of  a  king  is  a  much  more 
lawful  successor  to  the  throne  than  a  base-l)orn  slave.  Thou 
hast  insulted  and  wantonly  mocked  thy  masters  long  enough." 
At  these  Avords  the  partisans  of  each  raised  a  clamour  and 
shout;  the  ])eople  rushed  towards  the  Curia,  and  it  was 
manifest  that  he  would  reign  who  was  strongest.  And  now 
Tarquinius — for  necessity  com])elled  him  to  dare  the  last 
extremity — being  by  youth  and  strength  the  better  man, 
seizes  Servius  round  the  waist,  and,  carrying  him  forth  from 
the  Curia,  hurls  him  down  the  steps  towards  the  Forum  ; 


378 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   HOME. 


END   OF   SERVIUS. 


379 


then  he  returns  into  the  Curia  to  hold  a  Senate,  whilst  the 
officers  and  attendants  of  the  king  take  to  flight.  Servius 
himself,  half  dead,  and  unaccompanied  by  any  of  the  ordinary 
royal  suite,  was  making  his  way  homewards,  and  had  arrived 
at  the  top  of  the  street  called  Cyprius,  when  he  was  over- 
taken and  slain  by  some  men  whom  Tarquin  had  despatched 
after  him.  It  is  thought  that  the  deed  was  done  at  tlie  insti- 
gation of  TuUia,  as  it  accords  with  the  rest  of  her  wicked  acts. 
It  is,  at  all  events,  pretty  certain  that  she  proceeded  in  her 
chariot  into  the  Forum  ;  and  there,  with  unblushing  effrontery, 
in  the  midst  of  that  crowd  of  men,  she  called  her  husband 
forth  from  the  Curia,  and  was  the  first  to  salute  him  king. 
Tarquin  bade  her  betake  herself  out  of  that  crowd;  so  she 
drove  homewards,  and  when  she  had  arrived  at  the  Summus 
Cyprius  Vicus,  at  the  spot  where  the  Temple  of  Diana  lately 
stood,  and  was  turning  to  the  right  to  ascend  the  hill  called 
Urbius,  and  so  to  gain  the  summit  of  the  Esquiline,  the 
affrighted  driver  suddenly  pulled  up  the  horses,  and  pointed 
out  to  his  mistress  the  body  of  Servius,  which  lay  weltering 
in  its  gore.  It  is  related  that  a  most  foul  and  inhuman  crime 
was  then  committed — and  the  place  itself  is  a  record  of  it,  for 
it  is  still  called  Vicus  Sceleratus,  or  the  Street  of  Crime — 
when  the  maddened  Tullia,  goaded  on  by  the  furies  of  her 
sister  and  her  husband,  is  said  to  have  driven  lier  chariot 
over  the  body  of  her  father,  and  to  have  brought  home  to  her 
household  gods  some  of  her  parent's  blood,  with  which  the 
chariot,  and  even  her  own  person,  had  been  sprinkled  and 
contaminated.  But,  through  these  offended  gods,  an  end  was 
soon  to  follow  of  the  reign  thus  wickedly  begun.  Servius 
Tullius  had  ruled  forty-four  years  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
render  it  difficult  even  for  a  good  and  moderate  successor  to 
emulate  his  reign.  His  glory  was  further  augmented  by  the 
circumstance  that  with  him  perished  all  just  and  legitimate 
kingly  government.  Yet  some  authors  say  that  he  had  thoughts 
of  laying  down  even  that  mild  and  moderate  command  which 
he  exercised — namely,  because  it  was  vested  in  one  person — 
had  not  domestic  crime  cut  him  off  whilst  he  was  meditating 
the  liberation  of  his  countrv. 


1  *''*  i 


r 


PvEMARKS.— On  the  end  of  Servius  Tullius  Schwegler  remarks  :  ^ 
*'Tluit  Servius  was  hurled  from  his  throne  by  the  younger  Tar- 
quinius  with  the  help  of  the  Patricians,  and  that  in  this  revolution 
he  lost  his  life,  may  pass  for  historical.     But  all  beyond  this,  all 
the  detail  with  which  this  revolution  is  related,  must  be  rejected 
as  altogether  uncertified ;  and  the  crimes  of  Tullia  belong  rather 
to  poetical  popular  legends  than  to  history.     The  name  of  Yicus 
Sceleratus,  at  least,  proves  nothhig  for  the  historical  nature  of  the 
legend  attached  to  it ;  as  it  is  well  known  how  often  the  Bomans 
arbitrarily  connected  events  with  the  names  of  places.     The  name 
of  *  Accursed  Street'  (c£  Porta  Scelerata)  might  have  had  another 
origin,  and  bear  some  relation  to  that  of  the  Yicus  Cyprius  adjoin- 
ing, which  signified  just  the  contrary." 2     With  a  good  deal  of  this 
we  are  inclined  to  agree.     The  more  important  revolutions  in  the 
early  Boman  state  naturally  attracted  the  attention  of  the  people, 
became  the  frecpient  subjects  of  conversation,  and  hence  by  degrees 
were  embellished  with  fictitious  additions.     In  these  early  times, 
as  we  have  often  remarked,  we  must  be  content  to  take  the  general 
outline  ;  though  even  in  the  guilt  of  Tullia  and  her  husband  there 
may  be  some  foundation  of  truth ;  and  their  crimes  have  more 
probably  been  exaggerated  than  entirely  invented. 

*'  The  reign  of  Servius  TulHus,"  continues  Schwegler,  ''  lasted, 
according  to  the  common  tradition,  a  long  while— namely,  four  and 
forty  years.  But  this  is  impossible  if  the  second  Taripiin  was,  as 
the  old  tradition  with  remarkable  agreement  and  consistency  relates, 
the  son  of  Tarquunus  Priscus.  In  this  case,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
greatest  absurdities,  Servius  Tullius  can  have  reigned  only  for  a 
very  short  period ;  and  this  is  the  more  probable  solution.^  We 
do  not  mean  to  say  by  this  that  the  tradition  which  represents 
Tarciuinius  Superbus  as  the  son  of  Tarquinhis  Priscus  is  quite 
historical  and  certain ;  but  at  all  events  it  is  older  and  relatively 
more  credible  than  the  fictitious  chronology  of  the  Boman  kings. 
It  is  remarkable  tliat  Laurentius  Yalla  and  Beaufort,  as  well  as 
Dionysius,    argue   from   the   traditional    chronology    against    the 

sonship   of   the    younger    Tarquin,   though   the   opposite   course 
was  readier ;  namely,  to  question  the  thirty-eight  years'  reign  of 

Tarquinius  Priscus  and  the  forty-four  years  of  Servius  Tullius." 

1  Buck  xvi.  §  15.  '  Varr.  Ling.  Lut.  v.  159. 

3  On  these  inconsistencies  sec,  among  modem  authors,  Bayle,  Diet.  art. 
Tanaquil;  Beaufort,  Dissertation,  kc.  \^.  119,  scq.  222,  tcq. 


380 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


We  also  sliould  feel  inclined  to  argue  from  the  clironology  against 
the  sonship  of  Tarquinius  Superbus ;  because  the  Annales  Maximi 
would  undoubtedly  have  recorded  the  accession  and  death  of  Tar- 
quinius  Priscus  and  of  Servius  Tullius,  while  of  the  genealogy  of 
the  Tarquinian  family  they  would  have  taken  no  cognizance.  The 
probabilities  of  this  genealogy  we  have  discussed  in  another  place,^ 
and  shall  not  again  enter  upon  the  subject.  We  shall  only  remark 
that  we  cannot  see,  with  ScliAvegler,  any  great  "  agreement  and  con- 
sistency "  in  a  tradition  which  gives  us  the  choice  of  two  versions. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  remarks  :  ^  "  Although  the  reign  of  Servius 
is  two  centuries  after  the  foundation  of  Rome,  it  is  yet  more 
than  300  years  before  the  time  of  Fabius,  and  a  century  and 
a  half  before  the  burning  of  the  city  by  the  Gauls.  The  events 
referred  to  it  present  no  trace  of  contemporary  registration,  or  of  a 
narrative  derived  from  the  testimony  of  well-informed  witnesses. 
The  accounts  of  the  census,  as  has  been  already  observed,  though 
taken,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  official  and  authentic  sources, 
cannot  be  considered  as  ascending  to  the  time  of  Servius  ;  nor 
indeed  can  we  be  satisfied  that  the  date  of  the  inscription  relating 
to  the  federal  festival  of  the  Latin  towns  in  the  Temple  of  Diana 
on  the  Aventine  was  known  with  certainty.  That  a  full  contem- 
porary account  of  the  constitution  of  Servius,  with  statistical  details 
of  the  assessment  and  obligations  of  the  several  classes,  should  have 
been  preserved,  and  that  all  accurate  memory  of  the  other  events 
of  the  reign  should  have  perished,  is  in  the  highest  degree  impro- 
bable. With  respect  to  the  internal  evidence  for  the  narrative 
portion  of  the  reign,  it  does  not  stand  higher  than  that  of  the 
previous  part  of  the  regal  period.  The  legend  of  the  birth  and 
infancy  of  Servius  is  made  up  of  marvels  :  the  former  part  is 
obviously  a  mere  etymological  mythus,  intended  to  furnish  an 
explanation  of  the  name  Servius.  The  legends  which  connect  him 
with  temples  of  Diana  and  Fortune  have  no  claim  to  historical 
truth ;  and  the  final  tragedy  (which  incidentally  furnishes  an  origin 
for  the  name  of  the  Vicus  Sceleratus)  breathes  a  lofty  and  poetical 
spirit,  but  can  hardly  be  considered  as  a  recital  of  real  facts.  The 
chronological  inconsistencies  pointed  out  by  Dionysius  show  that 
the  relations  of  Servius  to  the  Tarquinian  family  could  not  have 
been  as  they  are  described  to  us,  and  stamp  the  whole  story  with  a 
legendary  character." 

1  See  above,  p.  2^4,  f<cqq.  "  rnMin)ility,  kc.  ch.  xi.  §  31. 


■1 ' 

4 


OBJECTIONS   OF   SIR   G.   C,    LEWIS. 


381 


-,  * 


?.* 


.(^ 


",i| 


-  I 


We  shall  not  here  inquire  into  the  objections  drawn  from  the 
magical  epochs  of  Fabius  and  of  the  burning  of  the  city,  as  we 
have  already  examined  these  points  in  the  introductory  dissertation 
on  the  sources  of  Eoman  history.  We  shall  only  observe  that  in 
a  paragraph  which  occurs  two  pages  afterwards,^  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
is  forced  to  admit  that  there  are  sources  which  carry  the  tradition 
considerably  higher  up  than  Fabius.  It  is  as  follows  :  '*  A  mention 
of  the  name  of  Servius  Tullius  can  be  traced  (though  not  with 
entire  certainty)  in  the  Greek  historian  Timoeus.  TimaBUS  died 
about  25G  b.c. — that  is  to  say,  about  280  years  after  the  time  fixed 
for  the  death  of  Servius ;  and  if  his  name  was  known  to  Tima^us, 
this  carries  the  tradition  higher  up  than  the  account  of  any  Tloman 
historian.  We  know,  from  the  testimony  of  Dionysius,  that  Timceus 
wrote  on  the  early  Roman  history." 

This  paragraph  is  supplemented  by  the  following  note  : — 

"  Pliny  has  these  words  :  *  Servius  rex  primus  signavit  a3S  :  antea 
rudi  usos  Roma3  Timreus  tradit.'  (H.  N.  xxxiii.  13.)  Elsewhere 
Pliny  says  :  *  Servius  rex  ovium  boumque  effigie  primus  a^s  signa- 
vit '  (xviii.  3).  The  former  passage  would,  if  strictly  construed, 
imply  that  Tima^us  described  the  Romans  as  having  used  uncoined 
copper  for  money  before  the  time  of  Servius.  If  so,  he  must  have 
named  Servius.  It  is,  however,  possible  that  Pliny  found  it  stated 
in  some  Latin  writer  that  Servius  was  the  originator  of  coined 
money  at  Rome,  and  that  Tima^us  only  reported  that  the  early 
Romans  used  uncoined  copper ;  out  of  which  two  statements  he 
formed  the  passage  above  cited." 

This  last  remark  has  more  the  character  of  special  pleading  than 
the  usually  fair  criticisms  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis.  But  it  will  not  serve 
the  purpose  for  which  it  is  intended.  Pliny  had  no  need  of  two 
authorities  to  make  up  his  account.  For,  first,  if  he  had  found  it 
stated  in  a  Latin  writer  that  Servius  first  coined  money  at  Rome, 
and  had  adopted  that  statement,  it  followed  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  the  previous  money  must  have  been  uncoined  ;  and  he  would 
have  felt  no  necessity  to  refer  to  the  authority  of  Timaus,  or  any- 
body else,  to  confirm  so  obvious  a  conclusion  of  common  sense. 
Secondly,  even  if  he  had  consulted  Timreus  on  the  subject,  he 
would  have  taken  nothing  for  his  pains  unless  that  author  men- 
tioned the  name  of  Servius  ;  for  so  vague  a  phrase  as  *'  the  early 
Romans  "  would  have  proved  nothing  at  all :  whereas  it  is  Pliny's 

1  P.  509. 


382 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


TMfii 


OBJECTIONS   OF   SIR   G.   C.   LEWIS. 


883 


purpose  to  denote  the  very  reign  in  which,  coinage  was  introduced. 
Thirdly,  Pliny  would  hardly  have  suppressed  the  name  of  the 
Latin  writer  from  whom  he  derived  his  positive  information,  and 
have  given  that  of  an  authority  from  whom  he  learnt  nothing  defi- 
nite. Lastly,  from  the  words  of  Pliny,  not  *'  as  strict! f/  construed," 
but  as  fairly  and  rightly  construed,  according  to  the  ordinary  idiom 
of  the  Latin  tongue,  antea  can  only  mean  ''  ante  Servium." 

It  may  be  considered  as  certain,  therefore,  that  Timseus  mentioned 
in  his  history  the  reign  of  Servius ;  and,  as  he  mentions  it  in 
connexion  with  the  coinage,  it  is  a  highly  probable  inference  that 
he  also  mentioned  the  census.  And  when  it  is  considered  that 
a  cultivated  people  like  the  Cuma^an  Greeks  had  existed  in  Italy 
three  centuries  before  the  foundation  of  Eome,  that  the  Tarquins 
were  in  communication  Avith  them,  and  that  TimaBUS,  a  native  of 
Tauromenium  in  Sicily,  could  hardly  have  failed  to  draw  much  of 
his  information  from  their  writers,  we  are  justified  in  supposing 
that  his  work  may  have  contained  a  good  many  particulars  not  only 
respecting  Servius,  but  also  respecting  the  other  lioman  kings. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  tells  us  that  Timreus  died  about  B.C.  256,  and 
thus  makes  him  280  years  posterior  to  Servius.  But  he  does  not 
tell  us  that  he  lived  nearly  a  century,  and  died  at  the  age  of  ninety- 
six;^  having  therefore  probably  been  born  about  the  year  B.C.  352. 
This  will  fairly  bring  him,  as  a  writer^  at  least  half  a  century 
nearer  to  Servius  ;  and  if  we  admit  the  reduction  of  Eoman  civil 
years  into  astronomical,  we  may  say  that  he  flourished  only  about 
two  centuries  after  Servius.  And  thus  there  must  have  been 
writers  upon  Poman  history  a  century  before  the  time  of  Fabius 
and  the  annalists,  and  there  must  have  been  sources  from  which 
they  could  draw  their  information. 

The  admission  that  the  accounts  of  the  census  were  taken  from 
official  sources  is  a  strange  contrast  to  the  assertion  in  the  preceding 
sentence,  that  the  events  of  the  reign  of  Servius  ^'  present  no  trace 
of  contemporary  registration  ;  "  for  we  have  already  shown  that  it 
would  have  been  a  moral  impossibility  to  refer  back  the  accounts 
of  the  census  of  the  republican  period,  "  by  construction,"  to  the 
reign  of  Servius.  And  when  we  find  such  a  writer  as  Livy,  who 
is  anything  but  a  stickler  for  the  authenticity  of  the  early  history, 
stating  without  qualification,  and  as  an  undoubted  fact,  that  the 
first  consuls  were  created  according  to  the  Commentaries  of  Servius, 

^  Lucian,  Macrobii  22. 


:'*3 


l^^ 


A?--. 


^1* 


it  seems  nothing  but  a  hap-hazard  conjecture  to  assert  that  there 
was  then  no  contemporary  registration.  But  it  is  plain  that  no 
sort  of  evidence  whatever  would  satisfy  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  since  he 
will  not  believe  the  evidence  as  to  the  Servdan  Temple  of  Diana, 
though  the  particulars  relating  to  it  were  engraved  on  a  brazen 
column,  and  had  been  perused  by  Dionysius  himself.  With 
criticism  like  this  it  is  impossible  to  reason,  as  it  rejects  the  very 
best  evidence  that  can  possibly  be  afforded  by  antiquity.  Such  a 
critic  might  with  equal  justice  reject  in  a  lump  the  whole  of  Poman 
history,  even  that  of  the  empire ;  for  it  is  supported,  for  the  most 
part,  by  nothing  but  the  authority  and  good  faith  of  the  historian  : 
and  if  the  critic  pleases  to  say,  "  This  authority  I  do  not  accept," 
there  remains  nothing  by  which  we  can  force  his  assent,  by  means 
of  demonstration.  It  then  becomes  a  question  only  of  probability. 
But  the  common  sense  of  mankind  will  revolt  against  so  unreason- 
able a  scepticism.  Public  buildings  and  temples  like  those  of 
Diana  and  Fortune  attributed  to  Servius  are  among  the  very  best 
historical  records.  They  are  durable  and  unalterable,  they  carry 
their  own  story  with  them,  they  are  known  to  the  whole  population 
from  generation  to  generation,  and  cannot  therefore,  like  written 
documents,  be  tampered  with  and  misrepresented. 

To  consider  it  as  improbable  that  the  details  of  the  Servian  con- 
stitution should  have  been  preserved  while  the  general  events  of 
the  reign  have  for  the  most  part  perished  does  not,  we  think,  show 
any  very  just  critical  view  of  the  matter.  On  the  contrary,  this  is 
exactly  what,  a  j^t^iori,  we  might  have  expected  to  happen.  The 
accounts  of  the  census  were  founded,  as  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  admits, 
on  official  documents,  which  were  more  likely  to  be  preserved  than 
the  scattered  memorials  of  political  transactions  either  at  home  or 
abroad.  It  is  by  the  deficiency  of  such  memorials,  and  not  by 
their  forgery  or  invention,  that  the  history  of  the  reign  of  Servius, 
like  those  of  the  other  kings,  has  suffered.  Letters,  as  Livy  says, 
were  rare  at  that  period,  and  even  of  the  literary  documents  wliich 
existed  a  great  part  perished  in  the  Gallic  conflagration ;  and  thus 
we  are  unable  to  trace  the  connexion  of  events  and  their  causes 
with  that  accuracy  which  is  necessary  to  perfect  history.  The 
fabulous  incidents  w^hich  accompany  the  birth  of  Servius  were 
doubtless  the  contemporary  figments  of  a  superstitious  age,  and  are 
not  likely  to  have  been  invented  three  centuries  afterwards.  There 
were  doubtless  many  more  events  in  the  reign  of  Servius  than  what 


384 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF  ROME. 


we  find  related  in  the  liistorians ;  but  there  is  no  good  reason  for 
doubting  the  general  truth  of  those  that  are  mentioned  :  such  as 
the  manner  in  which  Servius  seized  the  crown,  his  war  with  the 
Etruscans,  the  establishment  of  his  constitution,  his  enlargement 
of  the  city  and  completion  of  the  walls,  his  establishment  of  the 
Latin  League  and  building  of  the  Temple  of  Diana,  and  his  final 
overthrow  through  a  conspiracy  conducted  by  his  successor.  The 
details  of  that  conspiracy,  and  of  the  murder  of  Servius,  may  very 
probably  be  exaggerated  ;  but  on  the  whole  we  can  hardly  agree  in 
the  verdict  that  they  *'  breathe  a  lofty  and  poetical  spirit."  TuUia 
is  too  execrable  a  fury  even  for  a  tragic  heroine,  and  the  murder, 
with  its  circumstances,  except  the  rank  of  the  persons  implicated, 
is  one  of  those  brutal  deeds  which  we  might  expect  to  find  in  the 
annals  of  the  Old  Bailey. 


SECTION  X. 

ACCESSION     OF    L.    TARQUINIUS — LATIN     COUNCIL — VOLSCIAN 

WAR. 

L.  Tarquinius  now  began  to  reign,  who  obtained  the 
surname  of  Superbus,  or  the  Proud,  an  appellation  which  is 
attributed  to  his  having  forbidden  his  father-in-law  to  be 
buried,  giving  out  "  that  Eonmlus  also  perished  without 
sepulture."  He  put  to  death  the  leaders  of  the  Patricians 
whom  he  suspected  of  having  favoured  the  cause  of  Servius ; 
and  feeling  conscious  that  his  own  example  of  seizing  the 
throne  unlawfully  might  be  used  against  himself,  he  sur- 
rounded his  person  with  a  body  of  armed  men.  For  on  force 
only  could  he  rely  in  support  of  his  domination  ;  as  he  had 
obtained  it  neither  by  election  of  the  people,  nor  authority  of 
the  Senate.  Moreover,  as  he  could  not  rely  on  the  affections 
of  the  citizens,  through  fear  alone  could  he  hope  to  secure  his 
reign.  So,  in  order  to  strike  terror  into  as  many  as  possible, 
he  took  cognizance  alone  of  all  capital  cases,  without  taking 
any  counsel.  And  thus  he  was  enabled  to  put  to  death,  to 
banish,  or  to  fine,  not  only  those  whom  he  hated  or  suspected, 


FIRST   ACTS   OF   TARQUINIUS   SUPERBUS. 


385 


but  also  those  against  whom  he  had  no  other  motive  than  the 
booty  he  might  gain  by  coiitiscatiiig  their  estates.  Having  by 
these  means  diminislied  the  number  of  the  Senate,  he  resolved 
to  elect  none  into  that  body,  in  order  that  its  fewness  might 
render  it  contemptible,  and  that  its  members  should  be  less 
indignant  at  not  being  consulted  on  public  affairs.  For 
lie  was  the  first  king  who  departed  from  the  method  ob- 
served by  the  preceding  ones  of  consulting  the  Senate  on  all 
pu1)lic  matters.  His  whole  council,  in  ruling  the  state,  was 
contained  in  his  palace  ;  he  made  peace  and  war,  treaties 
and  alliances,  with  whom  he  pleased,  and  broke  them  off  in 
the  same  manner  by  himself  alone,  without  asking  the  con- 
sent of  the  Senate  or  the  people.  And  chiefly  he  took  care  to 
conciliate  the  Latins,  in  order  that,  through  his  power  and 
influence  abroad,  he  might  be  the  safer  among  his  subjects  at 
home.  He  not  only  formed  friendships,  but  family  alliances 
also,  with  the  chief  men  of  that  nation.  Thus  he  gave  his 
daughter  in  marriage  to  Octavius  Mamilius,  of  Tusculum,  who 
was  far  the  foremost  man  among  the  Latins,  and,  if  we  are  to 
believe  report,  descended  from  Ulysses  and  Circe.  And,  by 
means  of  this  marriage,  he  conciliated  to  himself  many  of  the 
relations  and  friends  of  Mamilius. 

Tarquin  had  already  acquired  a  great  authority  among  the 
Latin  chiefs,  when  he  appointed  tliem  to  meet  on  a  fixed  day 
at  the  grove  of  Ferentina,  as  he  wished  to  confer  with  them 
on  certain  affairs  which  concerned  their  common  interests. 
They  accordingly  met  in  great  numbers  early  in  the  morning  ; 
while  Tarquinius,  though  he  kept  the  appointed  day,  did  not 
appear  till  near  sunset.  During  that  wearisome  day,  as  may 
be  imagined,  many  and  various  were  the  discourses  in  the 
expectant  council.  Turnus  Herdonius,  of  Aricia,  inveighed 
fiercely  against  the  absent  Tarquin.  "  It  was  no  wonder,"  he 
said,  "  that  Tarquin  had  obtained  the  name  of  Superbus  at 
Eome.  (For  he  had  already  begun  to  be  commonly  so  called , 
though  the  reproachful  epithet  was  only  secretly  muttered.) 
What  could  be  haughtier  than  thus  to  trifle  with  the  whole 
Latin  nation  ?  Though  the  Latin  chiefs  had  been  brought  a 
lone  wav  from  their  honu\s,  yet  ho  who  had  summoned  the 

C  (" 


386 


HISTOKY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


council  did  not  make  his  appearance  !  It  was  done  merely  to 
try  their  patience,  so  that,  if  they  put  their  necks  under  the 
yoke,  he  might  oppress  those  obnoxious  to  him.  For  who  did 
not  perceive  that  he  affected  empire  over  the  Latins  ?  If  his 
own  subjects  were  inclined  to  trust  him,  or  if,  indeed,  his 
power  was  intrusted  rather  than  seized  by  a  parricide,  well 
and  good ;  let  tlie  Latins  also  trust  him,  though  this  was  no 
rule  for  them  with  regard  to  a  foreigner.  But  if  his  own  sub- 
jects were  weary  of  him,  one  after  another  having  either  been 
killed,  or  banished,  or  robbed,  what  better  hope  remained  for 
the  Latins?  If  they  would  attend  to  him,  he  would  recom- 
mend every  one  of  them  to  return  home,  and  pay  no  more 
attention  to  the  council-day  than  he  wdio  had  appointed  it." 

AVhile  this  seditious  and  daring  man,  who  had  by  like 
methods  attained  great  power  at  home,  was  uttering  these 
and  similar  invectives,  Tarquin  arrived,  and  put  an  end  to  his 
discourse.  All  turned  away  from  him  to  salute  the  Eoman 
king ;  who,  when  silence  had  been  obtained,  in  compliance 
with  the  admonitions  of  those  near  him  that  he  should 
excuse  himself  for  having  come  so  late,  explained  how,  having 
undertaken  to  arbitrate  between  a  father  and  son,  he  had 
been  detained  by  the  pains  he  had  taken  to  reconcile  them  ; 
and,  as  the  day  had  been  thus  wasted,  he  would  to-morrow 
bring  before  them  what  he  had  to  propose.  But  not  even 
this  excuse  was  accepted  in  silence  by  Turnus,  who  is  said 
to  have  exclaimed  :  "  That  nothing  could  be  shorter  than  to 
decide  between  father  and  son ;  that  such  a  matter  might 
be  settled  in  a  few  words ;  that  if  the  son  obeyed  not  his 
father,  woe  would  betide  him." 

Having  thus  upbraided  the  Itoman  king,  the  Aricinian 
quitted  the  council.  Tarquin  took  the  matter  more  seriously 
than  he  seemed  to  do.  He  began  at  once  to  contrive  the  death 
of  Turnus,  in  order  that  he  might  inspire  the  Latins  with  the 
same  terror  with  which  he  had  filled  the  minds  of  his  own 
subjects.  And,  as  he  had  not  the  power  to  put  him  to  death 
openly,  he  effected  his  ruin  by  bringing  against  him  a  charge 
of  which  he  was  innocent.  Through  some  Aricinians  of  an 
opposite  faction,  he  bribed  a  slave  of  Turnus  to  allow  a  grea 


THE   LATIN   COUNCIL. 


387 


quantity  of  swords  to  be  carried  secretly  into  his  lodgings. 
All  this  was  done  in  a  single  night;  and  a  little  before  day- 
break, having  sunnnoned  to  his  presence  the  chief  Latins, 
Tarquin,  as  if  agitated  by  a  recent  discovery,  addressed  them 
to  the  following  effect : — "  That  his  yesterday's  delay,  as  if 
occasioned  by  the  providence  of  tlie  gods,  had  proved  their 
safety  as  well  as  his  own.  He  had  been  told  that  Turnus 
was  meditating  the  murder  of  liimself,  and  of  the  chiefs  of 
the  different  peoples,  that  he  might  enjoy  alone  tlie  empire 
over  the  Latins.  That  he  would  have  attempted  this  the 
previous  day  during  the  council ;  but  the  stroke  was  post- 
poned on  account  of  the  absence  of  the  caller  of  the  council, 
whose  life  it  was  that  he  chieiiy  sought.  Hence  the  motive 
for  the  invectives  on  his  absence,  because  the  delay  had  frus- 
trated his  hopes.  There  could  be  no  doubt,  if  he  had  been 
truly  informed,  that  at  the  dawn  of  day,  when  tlie  council 
assembled,  Turnus  would  come  armed,  with  a  body  of  fol- 
lowers. It  was  said  that  a  vast  numljer  of  swords  had  been 
carried  to  his  lodgings,  and  it  might  be  at  once  discovered 
whether  or  not  this  was  true.  He  therefore  requested  them 
to  acconq^any  him  to  the  inn  where  Turnus  lodged." 

The  ferocious  disposition  of  Turnus,  the  speeches  that  he 
had  made,  and  Tarquin's  delay — as  it  seemed  that  the  mas- 
sacre might  have  been  postponed  on  that  account — all  con- 
spired to  awake  suspicion.  They  went,  therefore,  with  minds 
prepared  to  believe  the  charge;  not,  however,  unless  it  should 
be  confirmed  l)y  the  discovery  of  the  swords.  On  arriving, 
Turnus  was  awakened,  and  guards  placed  over  him ;  the 
slaves,  who  out  of  affection  for  their  master  were  preparing  a 
forcible  resistance,  were  seized  ;  and  then  swords  were  brought 
forth  which  had  been  hidden  in  all  parts  of  the  inn.  At  this 
discovery  everything  appeared  plain  ;  Turnus  was  cast  into 
chains,  and  a  council  of  the  Latins  was  immediately  sum- 
moned amidst  gi'eat  tumult.  On  the  production  of  the  swords, 
so  violent  was  the  hatred  occasioned  against  Turnus,  that, 
without  hearing  liis  defence,  he  was  put  to  death  in  a  new 
fashion,  by  being  cast  into  the  fountain  of  the  Aqua  Feren- 
tina,  a  basket  filled  with  atones  being  thrown  over  him. 


C  r  2 


388 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


TARQUIN    SUBJECTS   THE    LATINS. 


380 


Then  Tarquiii,  having  re-assemhled  the  Latins  in  council, 
and  eulogised  those  who  had  visited  Tuvnus  with  a  punish- 
ment befitting  the  manifest  parricide  wdiich  he  had  contem- 
plated, addressed  them  as  follows :  "  That  it  was  in  his  power 
to  act  in  pursuance  of  his  ancient  right;  since,  as  all  the 
Latins  had  sprung  from  Alba,  they  were  included  in  the 
treaty  in  which,  as  made  by  Tullus,  the  whole  of  the  Alban 
state,  together  with  its  colonies,  had  fallen  under  the  Roman 
dominion.     But,  with  a  view  to  the  good  of  all,  he  thought  it 
better  that  that  treaty  should  l)e  renewed  ;  so  that  the  Latins 
should  rather  participate  in  and  enjoy  the  prosperous  fortune 
of  the  Roman  people,  than  be  always  expecting  or  suffering 
the  destruction  of  their  towns  and  the  devastation  of  their 
fields,  as  they  had  done,  first  in  the  reign  of  Ancus,  and  then 
in  the  reign  of  his  own  father  (grandfather)."     The  Latins 
were  persuaded  without  much  difficulty,  although  the  treaty 
gave  the  Romans  the  superiority.     But  the  heads   of  the 
Latin  nation  seemed  to  side  with  and  partake  the  opinion  of 
Tarquin  ;  and  Turnus  afforded  to  every  one  a  recent  example 
of  the  danger  which  he  would  incur  by  opposing  the  king. 
So  the  treaty  was  renewed  ;  and  the  younger  Latin  men  were 
directed  that,  agreeably  to  its  tenor,  they  should  assemble 
in  arms,  on  a  certain  day,  at  the  grove  of  Ferentina.     They 
met,  according  to  the  edict  of  the  Roman  king,  from  all  the 
Latin  states ;  when  Tarquin  mingled  all  the  maniples  to- 
gether, and  thus  confounded  the  Latins  with  the  Romans,  so 
that  they  should  not  have  their  own  officers,  nor  any  secret 
command  or  peculiar  ensigns.     And  over  the  maniples,  thus 
doubled,  he  set  his  own  centurions. 

Nor  was  Tarquin  a  bad  commander  in  war,  however  unjust 
a  king  he  may  have  been  in  civil  matters.  In  this  depart- 
ment he  might  have  equalled  his  predecessors,  had  not  his 
warlike  glory  been  obscured  by  his  degeneracy  in  other 
respects.  He  it  was  who  began  the  war  with  the  Volsci, 
which  was  to  last  more  than  two  hundred  vears  after  his 
time ;  and  he  took  by  assault  the  Yolscian  town  of  Suessa 
Pometia.  By  the  sale  of  the  booty  taken  there  he  realized 
forty  talents  of  silver  and  gold,  which  caused  him  to  conceive 


. 


the  plan  of  a  temple  of  Jove  of  that  magnitude  which  should 
be  worthy  of  the  king  of  gods  and  men,  of  the  Roman  empire, 
and  of  the  majesty  of  its  situation  ;  so  he  appropriated  the 
money  he  had  captured  to  the  building  of  it. 

Remarks. — The  critics  have  found  little  or  nothing  to  object  to 
that  portion  of  the  reign  of  the  younger  Tarijuin  contained  in  the 
preceding  narrative.  Schwegler  remarks  :  ^  "  The  foreign  policy  of 
Tarquin  had  for  its  object  tlie  supremacy  over  Latium  ;  and  it  may 
be  considered  as  historical  that  he  succeeded  in  converting  what 
was  hitherto  a  confederate  relationship  on  equal  terms  into  one  of 
dependency.  But  the  historians  differ  as  to  the  means  by  which 
he  accomplished  this.  Cicero  says  -  that  he  subdued  Latium  by 
force  of  arms;  while  Livy  (as  we  have  seen)  says  that  he  compassed 
its  subjection  through  his  connexions  with  the  nobles  of  the  Latin 
cities.  The  last  account  is  incomparably  the  more  credible  one. 
It  is  probable  that  he  incited  those  diiferent  nobles  to  seize  the 
absolute  power  in  their  respective  cities,  as  he  himself  had  done  at 
Rome;  that  he  aided  them  to  do  this;  and  then  by  means  of  these 
despots,  who  were  obliged  to  look  to  him  for  support,  he  made  the 
cities  themselves  obedient  to  him.  Another  circumstance  which 
compelled  the  Latin  states  to  seek  the  leadership  of  Itome  and  to 
subordinate  themselves  to  her  was,  it  appears,  the  onward  pressure 
of  the  warlike  Yolsci :  the  same  cause  which  again  at  a  later  period, 
in  spite  of  the  equal  rights  stipulated  for  both  parties  in  the  treaty 
made  by  Sp.  Cassias,  brought  the  Latins  into  virtual  dependence 

on  Rome. 

'*  When  Dinoysius  ^  ascribes  to  the  younger  Tarquin  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Ferise  Latina3,  this  is  certainly  an  error.  The  festival 
is  doubtless  as  old  as  the  Latin  League  ;  since  all  the  confederacies 
of  ancient  peoples  were  founded  on  a  community  of  worship.  That 
the  origin  of  the  festival  reaches  back  into  hoar  antiquity  is  also 
seen  from  the  remaining  tradition,  which  ascribes  it  to  King  Faunus, 
or  to  Prisci  Latini,  or  to  a  period  immediately  following  the  death 
of  Latinus  and  iEneas.^  But  this  part  of  the  ac(;ount  of  Dionysius 
may  be  true,  that  the  younger  Tarquin  was  the  first  Roman  king 
who,  as  head  of  the  League,  performed  the  usual  sacrifice." 

It  would  have  been  difficult  to  dispute  that  Rome  under  the 


1  Buch  xviii.  §  12 
3  Lil..  iv.  4'.>. 


2  De  Rnp.  ii.  24. 

4  Schcl.  Bi>h.  ill  Cic.  riaiic.  \\  2r)«. 


;j.  !-Sf  .* 


390 


HISTORY    OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


ADMITTED   TROBABILITY   OF   THE    HISTORY. 


391 


younger  Tarquin  obtained  the  practical  headship  of  the  Latin 
League.  Such  a  consummation  formed  a  natural  sequel  to  the 
efforts  of  Servius  Tullius  in  the  same  direction,  and  is  confirmed 
by  the  treaty  Avith  Carthage  made  in  the  first  year  of  the  Eepublic, 
and  recorded  by  Polybius,^  in  which  Eorae  stipulates  for  the 
citizens  of  Laurentum,  Ardea,  Antium,  Circeii,  and  other  Latin 
cities  subject  to  her  (virfiKooi).  But  the  exact  forms  and  limits  of 
their  dependence  cannot  be  ascertained. 

With  the  scanty  notices  which  we  have  of  these  early  times,  we 
must,  however,  content  ourselves  with  the  bare  fact  of  Tarquin 
having  achieved  this  supremacy,  without  inquiring  too  minutely 
into  the  means  which  he  used.  We  agree  with  Schwegler  in 
thinking  that  Livy's  account  is  the  more  probable  one, — that  he 
eftected  it  by  means  of  his  alliances,  and  by  tlie  terror  which  he 
struck  by  the  example  of  Turnus  into  those  leaders  who  were 
opposed  to  him.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  he  may  have  reduced 
some  of  the  outlying  Latin  cities  by  arms.  It  is  somewhat  doubt- 
ful whether  Suessa  Pometia  belonged  to  the  Latins  or  the  Yolscians : 
Cicero  seems  to  have  held  the  former  opinion  by  the  way  in  which 
he  relates  its  capture, — "  Xani  et  omne  Latium  bello  devicit,  et 
Suessam  Pometiam,  urbem  opulentam  refertamque,  cepit "  (De  Pep. 
ii.  24) ;  and  hence  he  may  have  been  led  to  mention  Tarquin  as 
the  conqueror  of  Latium.  And  that  all  the  Latin  cities  were  not 
reduced  peaceably  under  his  dominion  may  be  seen  from  Livy's 
narrative  of  the  siege  of  Gabii.  That  he  accomplished  his  purpose 
by  making  the  Latin  princes  tyrants  like  himself,  is  nothing  but 
an  unnecessary  and  improbable  conjecture,  made  by  Peter,-  a 
German  writer ;  nor  is  the  supposition  that  the  Volscians  were 
then  pressing  on  the  Latins  any  better  founded. 

The  assertion  of  Dionysius  that  the  Periop  Latinre  were  founded 
by  Tarquin  is  doubtless  erroneous  ;  and  we  may  reject  it  with  the 
less  scruple,  as  that  author  gives  a  different  account  in  another 
place.^  Dionysius  also  gives  more  details  than  are  found  in  Livy 
of  the  illegal  and  tyrannical  proceedings  of  Tarquin,  some  of  which 
may  probably  be  true  :  as  that  he  abolished  the  laws  and  constitu- 
tion of  Servius  Tullius,  and  removed  from  the  Forum  and  destroyed 
the  brazen  tablets  on  which  his  laws  were  engraved ;  that  in  place 
of  the  census  he  restored  the  old  poll-tax ;  that  to  avoid  the  effects 
nf  the  hatred  thus  occasioned  he  forbade  all  public  meetings,  even 


%' 


.>,' 


■■*' 


»    l-il..  iii.  •-'•J. 


'•^  (»<'.-i«'li    Iv'Mii.  1.  ;"»2. 


3  Lil..  vi.  95. 


those  for  sacrifices  and  festivals ;  and  by  means  of  spies  discovered 
the  discontented,  and  punished  them  severely,  &c.^ 

On  the  same  events  in  the  reign  of  Tarquin  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
observes  :  ^  '*  The  story  of  the  meeting  of  Latin  deputies  is  suf- 
ficiently credible  (with  the  exception  perhaps  of  the  contrivance 
by  which  they  are  persuaded  to  condemn  their  colleague,  Turnus 
Herdonius) ;  but  it  appears  in  the  suspicious  form  of  an  introduc- 
tion to  the  origin  of  the  Feriai  Latina?.  The  amicable  arrangement, 
moreover,  by  which  Tar(iuin  establishes  the  ascendancy  of  Pome 
over  Latium  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  view  of  Cicero,  who 
describes  him  as  subduing  the  whole  of  Latium  by  force  of  arms." 

However  credible,  therefore,  may  be  the  proceedings  of  Tarquin 
with  the  Latin  League ;  however  they  may  be  corroborated  by  the 
tenor  of  the  preceding  history,  and  especially  by  the  subsequent 
treaty  with  Carthage, — of  which  not  a  word  is  here  said ;  yet 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  evidently  regards  the  whole  story,  agreeably  to  his 
favourite  hypothesis,  as  no  better  than  an  oetiological  myth.  But 
here  that  theory  breaks  down.  For  neither  Livy  nor  Cicero  says  a 
word  about  this  having  been  the  origin  of  the  Ferine  Latina? ;  while 
Dionysius,  the  only  author  who  does  so,  is  evidently  wrong.  And 
the  whole  passage  amounts  to  this  :  that  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  will 
accept  from  any  author  any  assertion,  however  wrong  and  impro- 
bable, provided  it  can  be  used  against  a  narrative  which  of  itself, 
and  except  for  this  assertion,  he  considers  to  be  credible.  Whether 
this  is  a  sound  method  of  criticism  we  may  leave  the  reader  to 
determine.  Of  the  discrepancy  between  Cicero  and  Livy  we  have 
already  spoken. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  history. 

THE   SURRENDER   OF   GABII. 

The  next  war  which  Tarquin  undertook  lasted  longer  than 
he  had  expected.  It  was  with  the  neighbouring  city  of  Gabii, 
which  he  had  attempted  to  carry  by  a  coup  dc  main  ;  and,  as 
he  had  also  been  compelled  to  raise  a  regular  siege,  he  deter- 
mined to  attack  it  hy  very  un-Poman  arts,  by  fraud  and 
stratagem.  Wherefore,  pretending  that  he  had  laid  aside  all 
thoughts  of  war,  and  was  intent  only  on  founding  his  temple 
and  other  municipal  works,  he  instructed  his  son  Sextus,  the 
youngest  of  three,  to  proceed  to  Gabii  as  a  fugitive,  and  to 

i  Lil..  iv.  43.  2  C'rean.ility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  622. 


^^issi^ii^mmisammmsss^ 


390 


HISTORY    OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


younger  Tarquin  obtained  the  practical  headship  of  the  Latin 
League.  Such  a  consummation  formed  a  natural  sequel  to  the 
efforts  of  Servius  Tullius  in  the  same  direction,  and  is  confirmed 
by  the  treaty  with  Carthage  made  in  the  first  year  of  the  liepublic, 
and  recorded  by  Polybius,^  in  which  liome  stipulates  for  the 
citizens  of  Laurentum,  Ardea,  Antium,  Circeii,  and  other  Latin 
cities  subject  to  her  (vTrfiKooi).  But  the  exact  forms  and  limits  of 
their  dependence  cannot  be  ascertained. 

With  the  scanty  notices  which  we  have  of  these  early  times,  we 
must,  however,  content  ourselves  with  the  bare  fact  of  Tarquin 
liaving  achieved  this  supremacy,  without  inquiring  too  minutely 
into  the  means  which  he  used.  We  agree  with  Schwegler  in 
thinking  that  Livy's  account  is  the  more  probable  one, — that  he 
effected  it  by  means  of  his  alliances,  and  by  tlie  terror  which  ho 
struck  by  tlie  example  of  Turnus  into  those  leaders  who  were 
opposed  to  him.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  he  may  have  reduced 
some  of  the  outlying  Latin  cities  by  arms.  It  is  somewhat  doubt- 
ful whether  Suessa  Pometia  belonged  to  the  Latins  or  the  Yolscians : 
Cicero  seems  to  have  held  the  former  opinion  by  the  way  in  which 
he  relates  its  capture, — "  Xam  et  onme  Latium  bello  devicit,  et 
Suessam  Pometiam,  urbem  opulentam  refertamque,  cepit "  (De  Pep. 
ii.  24) ;  and  hence  he  may  have  been  led  to  mention  Tarquin  as 
the  conqueror  of  Latium.  And  that  all  the  Latin  cities  were  not 
reduced  peaceably  under  his  dominion  may  be  seen  from  Livy's 
narrative  of  the  siege  of  Gabii.  That  he  accomplished  his  purpose 
by  making  the  Latin  princes  tyrants  like  himself,  is  nothing  but 
an  unnecessary  and  inq^robable  conjecture,  made  by  Peter,-  a 
German  writer  ;  nor  is  the  supposition  that  the  Yolscians  were 
then  pressing  on  the  Latins  any  better  founded. 

The  assertion  of  Dionysius  that  the  Feria^  Latina?  were  founded 
by  Tarquin  is  doubtless  erroneous  ;  and  we  may  reject  it  with  the 
less  scruple,  as  that  author  gives  a  different  account  in  another 
place.^  Dionysius  also  gives  more  details  than  are  found  in  Livy 
of  the  illegal  and  tyrannical  proceedings  of  Tarquin,  some  of  which 
may  probably  be  true  :  as  that  he  abolished  the  laws  and  constitu- 
tion of  Servius  Tullius,  and  removed  from  the  Forum  and  destroyed 
the  brazen  tablets  on  which  his  laws  were  engraved ;  that  in  place 
of  the  census  he  restored  the  old  poll-tax ;  that  to  avoid  the  effects 
of  the  hatred  thus  occasioned  he  forbade  all  public  meetings,  even 


1   Lil..  iii.  22. 


2  (jesoh.  Rom.  i.  52. 


3  Lil..  vi.  95. 


--■i*^ 


ADMITTED   PROBABILITY   OF   THE   HISTORY. 


891 


those  for  sacrifices  and  festivals  ;  and  by  means  of  spies  discovered 
the  discontented,  and  punished  them  severely,  &c.^ 

On  the  same  events  in  the  reign  of  Tarquin  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
observes  :  ^  "  The  story  of  the  meeting  of  Latin  deputies  is  suf- 
ficiently credible  (with  the  exception  perhaps  of  the  contrivance 
by  which  they  are  persuaded  to  condemn  their  colleague,  Turnus 
Ilerdonius) ;  but  it  appears  in  the  suspicious  form  of  an  introduc- 
tion to  the  origin  of  the  Ferise  Latino?.  The  amicable  arrangement, 
moreover,  by  which  Tartj^uin  establishes  the  ascendancy  of  Pome 
over  Latium  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  view  of  Cicero,  who 
describes  him  as  subduing  the  whole  of  Latium  by  force  of  arms." 

However  credible,  therefore,  may  be  the  proceedings  of  Tarquin 
with  the  Latin  League ;  however  they  may  be  corroborated  by  the 
tenor  of  the  preceding  history,  and  especially  by  the  subsequent 
treaty  with  Carthage, — of  which  not  a  word  is  here  said ;  yet 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  evidently  regards  the  whole  story,  agreeably  to  his 
favourite  hypothesis,  as  no  better  than  an  cetiological  myth.  But 
here  that  theory  breaks  down.  For  neither  Livy  nor  Cicero  says  a 
word  about  this  having  been  the  origin  of  the  Feria)  Latinag ;  while 
Dionysius,  the  only  author  who  does  so,  is  evidently  wrong.  And 
the  whole  passage  amounts  to  this  :  that  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  will 
accept  from  any  author  any  assertion,  however  wrong  and  impro- 
bable, provided  it  can  be  used  against  a  narrative  which  of  itself, 
and  except  for  this  assertion,  he  considers  to  be  credible.  Whether 
this  is  a  sound  method  of  criticism  we  may  leave  the  reader  to 
determine.  Of  the  discrepancy  between  Cicero  and  Livy  we  have 
already  spoken. 

Put  to  proceed  with  the  history. 

THE   SURRENDER   OF   GABII. 

The  next  war  which  Tarquin  undertook  lasted  longer  than 
he  had  expected.  It  was  with  the  neighbouring  city  of  Gabii, 
which  he  had  attempted  to  carry  by  a  couj)  de  main;  and,  as 
lie  had  also  been  compelled  to  raise  a  regular  siege,  he  deter- 
mined to  attack  it  by  very  un-Poman  arts,  by  fraud  and 
stratagem.  Wlierefore,  pretending  that  he  had  laid  aside  all 
thoughts  of  war,  and  was  intent  only  on  founding  his  temple 
and  other  municipal  works,  he  instructed  his  son  Sextus,  the 
youngest  of  three,  to  proceed  to  Gabii  as  a  fugitive,  and  to 

1  Li]».  iv.  43.  ^  C'ludiMlity,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  522. 


392 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


complain  of  tlie  intolerable  cmelty  of  liis  father.  "  That  he 
was  now  diverting  his  pride  from  strangers  to  his  own  family; 
that  he  was  weary  of  the  number  even  of  his  children,  and 
was  meditating  to  make  at  home  the  same  solitude  which  he 
liad  effected  in  the  Senate,  to  leave  no  progeny,  no  lieir  to 
his  kingdom.  He  had  escaped  from  the  weapons  of  his 
father,  under  the  belief  that  he  could  find  safety  nowhere 
else  except  among  the  enemies  of  L.  Tarquinius.  For  let 
them  not  be  deceived ;  ther(3  was  a  war  in  store  for  them 
which  he  pretended  to  have  given  up  ;  and  when  he  found 
an  opportunity  he  would  attack  them  unawares.  But  if  a 
suppliant  coidd  find  no  shelter  among  them,  he  would  wander 
all  over  Latiuni  ;  thence  he  would  seek  the  Yolsci,  the  ^qui, 
and  the  Hernici,  till  he  arrived  among  a  people  who  had 
humanity  enough  to  protect  children  against  the  cruel  and 
impious  persecutions  of  their  fathers.  And  perhaps  he  might 
find  among  them  ardour  enough  to  undertake  a  war  against 
the  proudest  of  kings  and  the  most  ferocious  of  peo])le." 

The  Gabines,  when  they  saw  how  influenced  with  anger 
Sextus  was,  kindly  received  him  among  them.  They  bade 
him  not  wonder  that  Tarcpiin  should  at  last  show  himself  the 
same  to  his  children  as  he  had  been  to  his  sul)jects  and  to  his 
allies :  nay,  if  other  materials  were  wanting,  he  would  expend 
Lis  fury  upon  himself  They  expressed  a  pleasure  in  welcoming 
him,  and  doubted  not  that,  with  his  aid,  the  war  would  soon 
be  transferred  from  the  gates  of  Gabii  to  the  walls  of  Eome. 

Sextus  was  soon  admitted  into  the  public  councils  of  the 
Gabines :  wherein  he  deferred  in  all  matters  to  the  opinion  of 
the  elders,  as  having  a  better  knowledge  of  them  than  him- 
self; except  that  he  was  always  an  advocate  for  war,  and  in 
this  department  assumed  to  himself  a  leading  part,  as  having 
a  knowledge  of  the  forces  on  both  sides,  and  being  aware  how 
hateful  was  the  king's  pride,  which  even  his  own  children 
could  not  endure,  to  the  citizens  of  Eome.  Thus  by  degrees 
he  incited  the  chief  men  of  Gabii  to  renew  the  war ;  he  him- 
self at  the  head  of  the  boldest  youths  made  predatory  incur- 
sions; and,  contriving  everything  he  said  and  did  for  the 
purpose  of  deception,  so  imposed  upon  the  Gabines  that  they 


SEXTUS   TARQUINIUS   AT   GABII. 


393 


I   I 


gave  him  the  supreme  command  in  the  war.  The  mass  of 
the  people  had  no  conception  of  his  plans  ;  and  as  in  several 
trifling  actions  between  the  Romans  and  Gabines  the  latter 
were  for  the  most  part  superior,  both  high  and  low  began  to 
think  that  S.  Tarquinius  had  been  sent  them  as  a  leader  by 
a  special  providence  of  the  gods.  And  such  was  the  affec- 
tion which  he  acquired  among  the  soldiers  by  sharing  their 
dangers  and  labours,  and  by  munificently  dividing  the  booty, 
that  Tar([uinius  the  father  was  not  more  powerful  at  Home 
than  his  son  at  Gabii. 

At  length,  therefore,  when  he  thought  that  he  had  acquired 
strength  enough  for  anything  he  might  attempt,  he  sent  one 
of  his  people  to  Rome  to  ask  his  father  what  he  wished  him 
to  do,  as  the  gods  had  favoured  his  endeavours,  so  that  he 
had  become  the  most  powerful  man  at  Gabii.  Tarquin,  mis- 
trusting perhaps  the  messenger,  gave  him  no  verbal  answer ; 
but  passing  into  the  garden  attached  to  his  house,  whither 
the  messenger  followed,  and  walking  up  and  down  in  silence, 
as  if  in  deliberation,  he  is  said  to  have  struck  off  with  his 
stick  the  tallest  poppy-heads.  At  length  the  messenger,  weary 
of  asking  and  receiving  no  re2)ly,  returned  to  Gabii,  as  if  his 
mission  had  been  a  failure.  Here  he  related  what  he  had 
said  and  what  he  had  seen  ;  that  the  king,  either  from  anger 
or  hatred,  or  the  natural  pride  of  his  temper,  had  not  uttered 
a  single  word.  But  Sextus  understood  the  wish  of  his  father, 
and  the  connnand  conveyed  in  that  roundabout  and  silent 
manner.  So  he  contrived  the  death  of  the  leading  men  of 
the  city ;  some  of  whom  were  despatched  through  the  oppor- 
tunity afforded  by  the  hatred  felt  towards  them,  whilst  others 
lie  incriminated  before  the  people.  Thus  many  were  publicly 
executed;  whilst  others,  against  whom  no  specious  charge  could 
be  brought,  were  privately  murdered.  Some  were  allowed  to 
expatriate  themselves ;  others  were  driven  into  exile :  and  the 
estates  both  of  the  banished  and  the  slain  were  alike  divided. 
Thus  the  sense  of  the  public  misfortune  was  blunted  by  the 
sweets  of  bribery  and  booty  and  private  advantage;  till  at 
length  the  Ciabine  state,  being  thus  deprived  of  all  counsel 
and  help,  fell  an  easy  ]U'ey  into  the  hands  of  the  Roman  king. 


39-i 


HISTORY    OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


Remarks. — On  the  preceding  narrative  Schwegler  observes  : 
"Tarquin  founded  in  Gabii  an  hereditary  collateral  principality' for 
one  of  his  younger  sons,  just  as  the  elder  Tarquin  had  done  before 
at  Collatia.  This  account  appears  to  be  quite  worthy  of  credit, 
especially  as  other  indications  show  that  Gabii  stood,  in  very  ancient 
times,  in  near  relationship  to  Itonie.  On  the  other  hand,  the  manner 
in  which  Tarquinius  is  related  to  have  got  possession  of  the  city  is 
a  complete  fable.  For  in  the  Temple  of  Sancus  at  Eome  there  still 
existed  in  the  time  of  Dionysius  the  treaty  which  Tarquin  then 
concluded  with  the  Gabines.  Over  a  wooden  shield  was  drawn  the 
hide  of  the  ox  wdiich  had  been  sacrificed  at  the  solemn  conclusion 
of  the  treaty ;  and  on  the  hide  were  written  the  conditions  of  the 
treaty  in  very  ancient  characters.  Gabii,  therefore,  came  under 
subjection  to  Tarquin  not,  as  the  tradition  represents,  by  treachery 
and  conquest,  but  through  a  formal  treaty  and  an  alliance  con- 
cluded with  the  assistance  of  Fetiales,  the  document  of  which  was 
deposited  in  a  temple.  "With  enemies  who  had  been  forced  to  sur- 
render unconditionally  after  a  long  and  obstinate  contest  no  such 
treaty,  according  to  all  ideas  of  ancient  international  law,  would 
have  been  concluded.  It  can  be  the  less  doubtful  that  the  common 
tradition  about  the  subjection  of  Gabii  is  falsified,  as  the  remaining 
portions  of  it  are  manifest  inventions, — that  is,  plagiarisms.  The 
stratagem  of  Sextus  Tarquinius  is  that  of  Zopyrus  against  Babylon ; 
and  the  counsel  which  Tarquinius  gives  his  son  by  cutting  off  the 
heads  of  the  poppies,  is  the  answer  of  the  tyrant  Thrasybulus  to 
the  tyrant  Periander."  ^ 

On  the  same  subject  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  remarks  :  "  The  inscription 
which  recorded  the  treaty  between  Rome  and  Gabii,  still  extant 
in  the  time  of  Dionysius,  was  doubtless  ancient ;  but  whether  it 
named  Tarquin,  or  contained  within  itself  any  indication  of  its  date, 
is  uncertain."  ^  And  again  :  "  The  entire  account  of  the  reduc- 
tion of  Gabii  is  improbable,  with  the  borrowed  stories  of  Sextus 
Tarquinius's  self-inflicted  punishment  and  the  decapitation  of  the 
poppies ;  nor  can  the  treaty  described  by  Dionysius  be  reconciled 
with  the  fraudulent  and  forcible  means  used  by  Tarquin  for  its 
ac(pusition,  or  with  the  subsequent  appointment  of  his  son  as  king 
of  the  town."  ^    These  views  are  further  supported  by  the  followmg 

1  Herod,    iii.    154,   v.   92  ;     Polyfen.   rii.   12  ;    Aristot.   Polit.    iii.   8,   3  ; 
V.  8,  7,  &c'. 

2  ('ro<iil»ility,  &•'.  i.  p.  .■»21.  -^  Ibid.  )).  522,  srq. 


I 


THE   GAlilNE   TREATY 


395 


([notation  from  Niebuhr :  "  It  is  quite  impossible  that  Gabii  should 
have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Roman  king  by  treachery.  Had 
such  l)een  the  case,  no  one — I  will  not  say  no  tyrant,  but  no  sove- 
reign in  antiquity — would  have  granted  the  Roman  franchise  to  the 
Gabines,  and  have  spared  them  all  chastisement  by  the  scourge 
of  war.  .  .  .  The  very  existence  of  a  treaty,  though  reconcilable 
with  the  case  of  a  surrender,  puts  the  forcible  occupation  out  of 
the  question."  ^ 

The  grounds  on  which  Schwegler  infers  a  near  connexion  between 
Rome  and  Gabii  in  very  ancient  times  are,  first,  the  following 
passage  in  Yarro  :  "  Ut  nostri  Angures  publici  disserunt,  agrorum 
sunt  genera  quinque,  Romanus,  Gabinus,  Peregrinus,  Hosticus, 
Incertus.  Romanus  dictus,  unde  Roma,  a  Romulo.  Gabinus  ab 
(tppido  Gabis.  Peregrinus  ager  pacatus,  qui  extra  Romanum  et 
Gabinum,  quod  uno  modo  in  his  secuntur  auspicia.  Dictus  pere- 
grinus, a  pergendo,  id  est  a  progrediendo ;  eo  enim  ex  agro  Romano 
primum  progrediebantur.  (^)uocirca  Gabinus  <|U0(iue  peregrinus, 
sed  quod  auspicia  habet  singularia,  ab  reliquo  discretus.  Hosticus 
dictus  ab  hostibus.  Incertus  id  ager,  qui  de  his  quatuor  qui  sit, 
i'moratur."  ^ 

The  second  inference  is  drawn  from  the  mode  of  dress  called 
the  Cinctus  Gabinus,  adopted  by  the  Romans. 

The  main  proof  of  the  Roman  connexion  with  Gal>ii  is  the 
treaty.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  about  the  existence  of 
tliis  treaty.  Dionysius  mentions  it  as  extant  in  his  time  in  the 
Temple  of  Sancus ;  and  as  he  describes  not  only  the  substance  and 
form  of  the  materials  on  which  it  was  written,  but  also  the  archaic 
character  of  the  letters,^  he  must  have  seen  it  with  his  own  eyes. 
The  existence  of  the  treaty  is  also  confirmed  by  Horace,  as  well  as 
the  fact  that  it  was  made  during  the  time  of  the  kings,  and  Tar- 
(piinius  Superbus  was  the  last  of  them  : 

Ftedera  rcr/ina 
Vel  Gabiis  vel  ciiin  riis  a^qiiata  Sabiiiis." 

Sir  G.  G.  Lewis's  objection,  therefore,  that  it  is  uncertain  whether 
the  treaty  **  named  Tarquin,  or  contained  within  itself  any  indi- 
cation of  its  date,"  is  nothing  but  a  captious  and  unreasonable 
scepticism;   especially  as  the  possibility  of  such  treaties  at  the 


'  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  512. 

^  yfjdfxidaiTU'  d^X"*'fO?!»  iiri'yi'ypafxiJ.ti/r},   iv.  58. 


2  Ling.  Lat.  V.  33. 
^  Ki>i..  ii.  1,  23. 


IMiM-iiiitaiiiirtli>'iifii#i 


396 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


period  in  question  is  confirmed  b}'  that  alread}'  mentioned  between 
Piome  and  Cartilage  in  the  first  year  of  the  liepublic ;  the  terms 
of  which  are  given  by  Polybius,  and  which  no  fair  criticism  can 
succeed  in  explaining  away. 

Keither  is  there  any  force  in  the  same  writer's  objection,  though 
supported  by  the  authority  of  JS^iebuhr,  that,  if  the  Gabines  had 
been  reduced  by  force  or  fraud,  no  treaty  would  have  been  granted 
to  them,  nor  would  they  have  been  admitted  to  Poman  citizenshi]). 
For  that  treaties  were  accorded  to  the  con(piered  we  learn  from 
Livy :  *'  Esse  auteni  tria  genera  faderum.  .  .  .  Unum  quuni  bello 
victis  dicerentur  leges,"  &c.i  And  the  assertion  of  Xiebuhr,  that 
no  sovereign  in  antiquity  would  have  granted  the  Ivoman  franchise 
to  the  Gabines,  and  have  spared  them  all  chastisement  of  the 
scourge  of  war,  is  so  flatly  contradicted,  as  the  reader  will  have 
already  seen,  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  history  under  the  Kings, 
and  is  so  diametrically  opposed  to  a  fundamental  principle  of 
Itoman  policy,  that,  had  we  not  known  the  source  from  which  it 
i:)roceeds,  we  should  have  ascribed  it  rather  to  a  mere  tyro  than  to 
a  great  and  profound  historian. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  fact  of  the  connexion  of  Gabii 
with  Itome  needs  not  any  collateral  support  that  may  be  drawn 
from  the  passage  in  Yarro  quoted  by  Schwegler,  or  the  inference 
from  the  Gabine  cincture.  By  the  last  method,  indeed,  we  might 
as  readily  prove  a  close  political  connexion  between  London  and 
Paris,  because  Londoners  sometimes  wear  French  gloves  or  hats. 
The  circumstance  tliat  the  Ager  Gabinus  is  mentioned  with  the 
Poman  as  a  distinct  field  of  augury  is  more  to  the  purpose,  if  we 
could  be  quite  certain  of  Yarro's  meaning  in  the  word  singularia  ; 
for  he  may  mean  either  separate  and  distinct,  or  of  a  i)eculiar  kind. 
But  in  either  case  we  do  not  see  how  the  passage  can  be  made  to 
support  an  inference  of  Schwegler's,  after  Miiller,'-  that  the  Pomans 
received  from  Gabii  their  augural  rites ;  founded  apparently  on  an 
obscure  tradition  that  Pomulus  and  Pemus  were  educated  there. 

The  fact  of  a  connexion  between  Pome  and  Gabii  in  the  time 
of  King  Tarquin  the  Proud  being  thus  established  on  the  best  pos- 
sible evidence  in  a  matter  of  such  high  antiquity,  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  effected  is  of  less  importance,  or  whether  the  historians 
in  relating  it  have  added  embellishments  of  their  own.  These 
historians  are  considered   to  have  been  very  ingenious  inventors. 


I.il 


>.    XXXIV.    »/. 


2  Schwegler,  P..  i.  S.  :3yi>  ;  Miiller,  Etr.  ii,  121. 


THE    GABINE   TREATY. 


397 


and  capal)le — for  instance,  as  in  the  case  of  Iloratius — of  interweav- 
ing some  half-dozen  monuments  of  the  most  ditterent  sorts  into  one 
connected  story  ;  yet  here  they  appear  (mly  as  stupid  and  barefaced 
plagiarists.  The  ground  on  wliich  such  accusations  are  founded  is 
that  it  is  impossible  for  an  event  ever  to  have  repeated  itself;  and 
that  therefore  the  second  story  must  necessarily  be  a  fiction.  But 
even  if  no  precedent  can  be  found  for  a  story,  it  is  equally  liable  to 
be  condemned.  Thus,  for  instance,  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  rejects  the 
account  of  the  manner  in  which  Tarquin  ell'ected  the  destruction  of 
Turnus  llerdonius,  though  it  is  not  pretended  that  it  has  a  proto- 
type. However,  all  that  we  are  contending  for  on  behalf  of  this 
early  history  is  the  truth  of  the  main  outlines  ;  the  reality  of  the 
kings,  their  order  of  succession,  and  the  historical  nature  of  the 
jnincipal  events  of  their  reigns.  That  some  of  the  details  have 
been  now  and  then  amplified  or  embellished  is  very  possible ;  even 
modern  history  may  not  always  be  free  from  a  charge  like  this  ; 
V)ut  it  ailbrds  no  ground  for  condemning  the  entire  narrativ^e  in  a 
mass. 

The  history  then  proceeds  as  follows. 


PEACE    WITH     THE     .EQUI    AND    TUSCANS BUILDING    OF     THE 

CAPITOLINE      TEMPLE,     ETC.  —  COLONIES      OF     CIRCEII     AND 
SIGNIA. 


Gabii  liavin<j;  boon  thus  reduced,  Tarquin  concluded  a  peace 
with  the  ufEqui,  and  renewed  the  treaty  with  the  Tuscans. 
Then  he  turned  his  attention  to  the  affairs  of  the  citv;  wherein 
his  first  care  was  to  erect  on  ^Vlons  Tarpeius  a  temple  of 
Jupiter,  that  might  be  to  posterity  a  monument  of  his  reign 
and  his  name ;  and  that  it  might  1)e  remembered  as  the  work 
of  the  two  Tar(|uins, — vowed  by  the  father  and  accomplished 
by  the  son  (grandson).  And  that  the  whole  area  set  apart  to 
J(jve,  as  well  as  the  temple  that  was  to  be  built,  might  be 
consecrated  solely  to  him,  and  freed  from  the  worship  of  other 
deities,  he  resolved  to  exaugurate  some  fanes  and  chapels 
which  had  been  vowed  by  King  Tatius  during  his  struggle 
with  Pomulus,  and  had  afterwards  l)een  there  consecrated 
and  inaugurated.     It  is  related  that,  at  the  very  commence- 


398 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


merit  of  the  undertaking,  the  divine  will  of  the  gods  inclined 
them  to  indicate  tlie  future  strength  of  the  empire.  For  the 
auouries  were  fovourable  to  the  exau^uration  of  all  the  other 
fanes  except  that  of  Terminus  ;  an  omen  and  augury  which 
was  interpreted  to  mean  that  Terminus  not  having  been  re- 
moved from  his  place,  and  he  alone  of  all  the  gods  not  having 
been  evoked  from  his  consecrated  boundaries,  portended  the 
firmness  and  stabdity  of  the  lioman  state.  After  the  accept- 
ance of  this  augury  of  perpetuity,  anotlier  prodigy  foll(3wed, 
portending  the  magnitude  of  the  empire.  Those  who  were 
Jiofriiifv  the  foundations  of  the  temide  are  said  to  have  found 
a  human  head  with  the  face  perfect  ;  an  apparition  which 
unambiguously  portended  that  this  spot  would  be  the  citadel 
of  empire  and  the  head  of  affairs  :  an  interpretation  given 
not  only  by  the  soothsayers  wlio  were  in  the  city,  but  also  by 
those  who  had  been  sent  for  from  Etruria  to  consult  about 
the  omen.  By  these  prodigies  the  king's  mind  was  incited  to 
sj^are  no  expense  ;  and  hence  the  spoils  taken  at  l*ometia, 
which  had  been  set  apart  to  complete  the  whole  luiilding, 
hardly  sufficed  to  lay  the  foundations  of  it.  This  it  is  that 
inclines  me  to  believe  Fabius  rather  than  l^iso — besides  that 
Fabius  is  the  older  author— who  w^rites  that  only  forty  talents 
had  been  appropriated  to  the  w^ork  ;  wdiile  I'iso  says  that  it 
was  40,000  pounds'  weiglit  of  silver ;  a  sum  of  money  which 
could  not  be  expected  from  the  spoils  of  one  city,  such  as 
cities  then  were,  and  wdiich  would  surely  have  been  more  than 
enouf^h  for  the  foundations  even  of  so  magnificent  a  work 

as  this. 

Tarfpiin  being  thus  intent  upon  finishing  the  temple,  not 
only  sent  f(jr  workmen  from  all  parts  of  Etruria,  whom  he 
paid  with  the  public  money,  but  also  compelled  the  })lebeians 
to  labour  at  it.  These  were  also  liable  in  addition  to  military 
duties  ;  yet  they  were  less  annoyed  at  being  compelled  to 
V)udd  with  their  own  liands  the  temjdes  of  the  gods  tlian  at 
their  labour  being  afterwards  transferred  to  works  of  less 
magnificence,  yet  more  laborious ;  as  the  making  of  fori  in 
the  Circus,  and  excavating  the  Cloaca  ^Maxima,  the  receptacle 
of  all  the  sewage  of  the  city  :  wiiich  two  works  are  hardly 


EXTENT   OF   TxVRQUIN  S   EMPIRE. 


31)9 


i 


e([ualled  in  magnificence  by  those  of  the  present  day.  But, 
thougli  Tarcpiin  kept  the  people  employed  at  these  w^orks, 
there  was  still  a  superfluous  multitude  that  he  could  not  use, 
and  who  seemed  to  be  only  a  burthen.  He  deternuned, 
therefore,  to  employ  them  in  extending  the  boundaries  of  the 
empire,  and  sent  them  as  colonists  to  Signia  and  Circeii, 
where,  as  frontier  garrisons,  they  might  serve  to  protect  Bome 
both  by  land  and  sea. 

Kemarks. — Tlic  account  of  Tarquin  having  reduced  to  subjection 
the  whole  of  Latiuin  is  corroborated  by  the  facts  of  his  having 
founded  the  colonies  of  Signia  and  Circeii ;  one  of  which  lies  a 
good  way  inland  in  that  country,  while  the  other,  Circeii,  is  almost 
at  the  southern  extremity  of  its  coast,  if  considered  as  bounded  by 
the  Yolscians.  A  further  corroboration  arc  liis  wars  with  the  ^Equi 
and  Yolsci,  nations  that  dwelt  on  the  frontiers  of  Latiuni,  and  with 
whom  he  could  have  had  no  concern,  had  not  Latium  been  previ- 
ously reduced.  These  wars  are  merely  hinted  at  by  the  historians ; 
that  indeed  with  the  /Epii  can  only  be  inferred  from  Livy's  men- 
tioning the  peace  that  Tanpiin  made  with  them, — a  proof  how 
meagre  were  the  accounts  of  these  early  times  that  had  been 
preserved. 

On  this  subject  Schwegler  observes  :^  "Bespecting  the  extension 
of  Tarcpiiii's  dominion  we  possess  a  remarkable  archival  document 
in  the  commercial  treaty  concluded  between  Bome  and  Carthage 
in  the  first  year  of  the  liepublic,  under  the  consulship  of  Junius 
Brutus  and  Marcus  Iloratius.  The  conditions  of  the  treaty  were 
as  follows  :  The  Bumans  and  their  confederates  were  not  to  sail, 
south  or  east,  beyond  the  Bulcrum  Bromontorium,^  except  com- 
pelled by  weather  or  enemies ;  and  in  this  case  to  make  only  the 
most  necessary  purchases,  and  depart  after  a  stay  of  not  more  than 
five  days.  But  to  the  west  of  that  promontory  they  might  traflic 
freely,  in  Africa,  Sardinia,  and  that  part  of  Sicily  subject  to  the 
Carthaginians.  The  Carthaginians,  on  the  other  hand,  ])ledge 
themselves  to  abstain  from  injuring  the  people  of  Ardea,  Antium, 
Laurentum,  Circeii,  Terracina,  and  the  rest  of  the  Latins,  so  far  as 
they  may  be  subject  to  the  Bomans ;  and  if  any  of  the  Latins  were 
not  so  subject,  to  refrain  from  attacking  their  cities ;  or  if  they 

^    Tmcli  xviii.  §  13.  ^  Now  C;i]i«;  Farina  in  Africa. 


BM.>ja.*;afe.^«<^iltf,IB>MnmiiiiHl^1 


400 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


should  conquer  one  of  them,  to  deliver  it  over  unharmed  to  the 
Romans  ;  and  lastly,  not  to  erect  any  fortresses  in  Latium.  Under 
these  conditions  there  shall  be  friendship  between  the  liomans  and 
Carthaginians,  including  their  allies  on  both  sides. 

"This  document,  the  genuineness  of  which  cannot  be  justly 
doubted,  throws  an  unexpected  light  on  the  relations  of  Home  at 
that  time ;  but  which,  it  must  be  allowed,  is  not  favourable  to  the 
traditional  history. 

"  For,  first,  Rome  appears  in  it  as  the  political  head  of  Latium,  as 
it  publicly  stipulates  in  the  name  of  the  whole  Latin  people  j  and 
then  as  mistress  of  the  coast  from  Ostia  to  Terracina.  That  she 
was  the  head  of  Latium  we  know  from  the  common  tradition,  but 
not  that  she  was  mistress  of  the  coast.  Circeii,  indeed,  is  named 
by  the  historians  as  a  colony  founded  by  the  younger  Tarquin  ; 
and  the  fortifying  of  so  distant  a  point  leads  to  an  inference  of 
the  extent,  as  well  as  the  maritime  importance,  of  the  Tarc^uinian 
kingdom.  But  when  the  treaty  names  also  Ardea,  Antium,  Ter- 
racina, Laurentum,  as  cities  subject  to  Rome,  the  common  tradition 
knows  nothing  of  this.  Ardea,  especially,  according  to  this  tradi- 
tion, is  being  besieged  by  Tarquin  when  the  revolution  breaks  out 
in  Rome :  on  which  the  Republic,  it  is  said,  abandons  the  siege, 
and  concludes  a  fifteen  years'  armistice  with  the  city ;  which  conse- 
quently is  all  a  fiction.  And  Antium  is  enumerated  by  Dionysius 
among  the  Volscian  peoples  who  take  part  in  the  Temple  of  Jupiter 
Latiaris  founded  by  Tarquin  :  while  according  to  the  treaty  Antium 
at  that  time  was  not  a  Volscian  but  a  Latin  city  ;  not  a  free  member 
of  the  Latin  League,  but  subject  to  Rome.  In  short,  the  treaty 
gives  us  quite  a  different  idea  of  the  extent  and  power  of  the 
Tarquinian  kingdom  from  the  common  tradition  ;  it  shows  what  a 
splendid  legacy  the  young  Republic  had  received  from  the  monarchy, 
but  very  quickly  lost. 

"  Further,  we  see  from  the  commercial  treaty  in  question  that 
the  Romans  under  the  last  kings  had  a  very  extensive  maritime 
commerce.  But  of  this  also  the  common  tradition  says  nr.t  a  word : 
we  could  never  have  guessed  from  it  that  two  centuries  and  a  half 
before  the  First  Punic  War  Roman  merchant  vessels  visited  Africa 
and  Sicily.  In  the  first  two  centuries  of  the  Republic,  at  least,  we 
find  no  traces  of  maritime  commerce.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
this  reverse  is  connected  Avith  the  overthrow  of  the  Tarquinian 
dynasty.     The  maritime  commerce  pursued  by  the  Romans  under 


THE  TREATY  WITH  CARTHAGE. 


401 


the  Tarquins  was  closely  connected  with  the  spirit  and  the  civiliza- 
tion of  that  period  :  it  paved  the  way  for  that  Grecian  influence 
which  appears  very  prominently  at  that  epoch  ;  it  promoted  that 
spirit  of  enlightenment,  of  religious  and  political  innovation,  which 
characterises  the  times  of  the  last  three  kings.  But,  for  the  same 
reasons,  it  accorded  ill  with  the  spirit  and  the  reactionary  policy  of 
the  ruling  families  which  succeeded  in  the  place  of  the  monarchy ; 
and  we  may  conjecture  that  the  ruling  order  industriously  endea- 
voured to  limit  it,  and  to  bring  the  old  agricultural  system  again 
exclusively  into  vogue." 

The  above  criticism  is  not  remarkable  for  vigour  and  consistency; 
and  indeed  the  last  sentences  go  a  great  way  to  overthrow  all  that 
has  been  said  before. 

iSchwegler  admits  the  genuineness  of  the  Carthaginian  treaty, 
and  that  it  throws  an  unexpected  light  on  the  relations  of  Rome  at 
that  time,  but  asserts  that  it  is  not  favourable  to  the  traditional 
history.  But  if  we  examine  what  is  meant  here  by  "  the  traditional 
history,"  we  find  that  it  is  only  some  [)assages  in  Dionysius  which 
are  not  found  in  the  Latin  authors.  It  is  acknowledged  that  the 
common  tradition  represents  Rome  as  at  that  time  the  head  of 
Latium ;  and  in  this,  which  is  the  main  circumstance,  it  is  in  per- 
fect accord  with  the  treaty.  Then  it  is  objected  that  tradition  does 
not  represent  her  as  mistress  of  the  coast.  But  if  she  was  the 
head  of  Latium,  would  not  that  include  the  coast  of  Latium  ?  And 
does  not  Schwegler  almost  entirely  demolish  his  own  argument 
when  he  admits  that  the  fjrtiiying  of  so  distant  a  point  as  Circeii 
argues  a  kingdom  of  maritime  importance? 

Objections  like  these  spring  from  the  unreasonable  expectation 
of  finding  all  the  details  of  the  history  of  these  early  times  worked 
out  with  the  same  minuteness  and  accuracy  as  in  recent  history. 
We  must  be  content  if  we  find  the  great  leading  outlines  confirmed, 
which  in  this  case  they  are,  by  a  formal  and  authentic  document. 

Ardea  was  doubtless  being  besieged  at  the  time  of  the  expulsion 
of  the  kings ;  we  learn  this  fiom  Livy  as  well  as  Dionysius :  but 
the  account  of  the  fifteen  ye^irs'  truce,  which,  if  true,  would  have 
excluded  it  from  being  mentioned  in  the  treaty,  is  found  only  in 
Dionysius ;  ^  and  therefore  if,  as  it  would  appeal',  this  is  "  all  a 
fiction,"  Dionysius  must  bear  the  blame  of  being  the  author  of  it. 
We  can  only  conclude  that,  if  Ardea  was  not  actually  captured, 

1  Lib.  iv.  S5. 
J)  J> 


I 


402 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  ROME. 


GREATNESS  OF  REGAL  HOME. 


403 


there  must  have  been  a  treaty  Avith  Eome  instead  of  a  truce.  In 
a  note,  however,  Schwegler  admits  that  Florus  ^  and  Orosius  -  men- 
tion Ardea  among  the  towns  of  Latium  captured  by  Tar(j[uin  :  yet 
he  arbitrarily  rejects  their  account  as  inaccurate,  thougli  it  is  colla- 
terally confirmed  by  the  treaty,  and  prefers  to  it  that  of  Dionysius, 
hardly  a  better  authority,  though  at  variance  with  the  treaty.  It 
is  easy  to  see  the  motive  for  this  perverse  criticism  ;  the  account  of 
Dionysius  lends  a  handle  to  impugn  the  history. 

Still  more  captious  and  uncritical  are  Schwegler's  remarks  about 
Antium.  That  city,  as  Xiebuhr  and  others  have  shown, ^  did  not 
fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Yolscians  till  long  after  this  period  ;  and 
Dionysius,  therefore,  is  mistaken  in  representing  it  as  a  Yolscian 
city  in  the  time  of  Tarquin.  And  indeed  it  is  manifest  that,  if 
Tarquin  had  extended  his  rule  to  Circeii  and  Terracina,  Antium, 
which  lies  midway  between  Circeii  and  Eome,  could  hardly  have 
been  Volscian. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  agree  with  Schwegler's  conclusion,  that 
the  treaty  gives  us  quite  a  different  idea  of  the  extent  and  power 
of  the  Tarquinian  kingdom  from  the  common  tradition  :  on  the 
contrary,  we  think  that  the  treaty  very  strongly  corroborates  the 
tradition  ;  adding  to  it  at  the  same  time  a  few  facts  and  inferences 
which  the  necessary  meagreness  of  the  tradition  had  not  su])plied. 

Among  these  additions  by  far  the  most  important  and  valuable 
is  the  fact  that  Eome  must  have  then  enjoyed  an  extensive  maritime 
commerce.  And  Schwegler  allows  that  •*  *'  AVe  know  from  other 
sources  that  the  rest  of  the  towns  mentioned  in  the  treaty  enjoyed 
a  maritime  commerce  at  a  very  early  period.  Aricia  had,  accordin^^ 
to  Dionysius  (vii.  6),  numerous  merchant  vessels  ;  and  its  connexion 
Avith  Cum?e  leads  to  the  inference  that  it  w^as  more  specially  euf^ao-ed 
in  trade  with  the  cities  of  Magna  Grspcia.  Ardea  had  connexions 
with  Sicily  and  Saguntum,  which  it  is  said  to  have  jiartly  colonized 
(Liv.  xxi.  7) ;  and  its  great  wealth  (Liv.  i.  57,  Dionys.  iv.  G-4)  was 
derived  probably  from  its  commerce.  Antium  exercised  piracy  in 
conjunction  with  the  Tyrrhenians  (Strab.  v.  3,  5) ;  and  its  galleys 
and  navigation  are  mentioned  on  the  occasion  of  the  subsequent 
reduction  of  the  town  "  (b.c.  335). 

From  these  facts  we  are  justified  in  making  a  still  wider  induc- 


'  Lib.  i.  75. 

8 


2  Lib.  ii.  4. 
^  See  Mr.  Buubury'.s  ai-tirlp  Avfiuni,  in  Smith's  Dirt,  of  Aiir    Opofn-ai.hv 
*  S.  792,  Anm. 


(' 


tion.  It  is  impossible  that  a  people  who  enjoyed  so  extensive  a 
commerce  as  is  shown  by  the  irrefragable  evidence  of  this  treaty 
could  have  been  so  semi-barbarous  and  illiterate  as  it  pleases  the 
sceptical  critics  to  represent  them,  ^laritime  commerce  is  a  late 
product  of  civilization,  and  contributes  still  further  to  extend  it. 
It  imidies  at  least  a  knowledge  of  writing  and  arithmetic  ;  and  the 
Eomans  therefore  coidd  not  have  b(?en  still  without  the  exercise  of 
those  useful  arts  in  the  time  of  Tarijuin,  except  for  a  few  monu- 
mental purposes,  as  inscriptions  on  public  buildings,  treaties,  and  so 
forth,  as  Schwegler  thinks  fit  to  assert.^ 

Further,  a  commerce  so  extensive  as  that  indicated  by  the  treaty 
in  question  could  not  have  been  the  product  of  a  few  years,  but  of 
at  least  a  century  or  tw^o.  And  the  first  developement  of  it  may 
he  traced,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  to  the  foundation  of  Ostia 
by  Ancus  ^larc-ius.  This  carries  us  up  to  a  century  or  so  from 
the  foundation  of  Eome.  IJut  how  improbable  the  ( (pinion  that  a 
people  of  this  sort,  that  had  executed  the  great  public  works  then 
extant  at  Eome,  should  have  forgotten,  or  left  unrecorded,  all  the 
particulars  of  its  history  ! 

AVe  agree  with  Schwegler  in  thinking  that  Eome  owed  a  great 
deal  to  her  kings,  and  especially  to  the  last  three  kings.  And 
though  the  last  Tarquin  may  have  been  a  tyrant,  he  was,  like 
Borgia,  no  bad  political  ruler.  The  regal  period  at  Eome  was  a 
period  of  much  more  enlightenment  and  civilization  than  the 
century  or  two  which  followed  its  termination.  This  comparative 
decay  is  indicated  by  the  loss  of  her  maritime  commerce,  of  her 
dominion  over  Latium,  and  by  the  little  improvement  that  took  place 
in  the  city  itself;  which  forms  a  strong  contrast  to  the  magnificent 
works  of  the  Tarquins.  AVith  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the 
Temple  of  Juno  Moneta,  there  were  no  public  works  undertaken  at 
Eome  before  the  censorship  of  Appius  Claudius  Ctecus,  in  B.C.  312, 
w^hich  can  for  an  instant  be  compared  to  the  Capitoline  Temple,  the 
Cloaca  Maxima,  and  the  Circus  ;  or  even  perhaps  to  the  Curia  of 
Tullus  llostilius.  It  is  for  the  historian  of  the  early  Eepublic  to 
trace  the  causes  of  this  retrograde  movement.  A  few  of  them  are 
obvious  enough  ;  as  the  war  waged  against  Eome  by  Tarquin  with 
the  aid  of  Porsena,  and  the  capture  of  the  city  by  the  Gauls.  It 
may  also  have  been  partly  owing,  as  Schwegler  suggests,  to  the 
reactionary  spirit  of  the  great  families,  their  ambition  and  mutual 

1  B.  i.  S   ,3G. 
D  D  2 


404 


HISTORY   OF  THE  KINGS   OF  ROME. 


THE   CAPITOLINE   TEMPLE. 


405 


jealousies,  and  their  contempt  for  and  hatred  of  the  higher  class  of 
plebeians,  who  had  enriched  themselves  by  commerce.  After  the 
expulsion  of  the  kings,  these  feelings  had  full  scope  for  their 
display,  without  let  or  hindrance. 

With  regard  to  the  works  constructed  by  the  Tarquins  Schwegler 
remarks:^  "The  Capitoline  Temple  stands  at  the  head  of  them. 
As  in  most  of  the  undertakings  of  the  Tarquinian  epoch,  tradition 
assigns  a  share  in  tliis  building  to  both  the  Tarquins  ;  ascribing  to 
the  father  the  laying  of  the  foundation  and  preparation  of  the 
ground,  to  the  son  the  completion  of  the  building.  If  we  consider 
the  magnitude  of  the  undertaking  and  the  extent  of  the  necessary 
substructions,  it  must  at  all  events  appear  probable  that  so  enormous 
a  structure  was  the  w^ork  of  several  generations ;  if  even  the  reign 
of  Servius  Tullius  did  not  stand  between,  during  which  no  progress 
was  made.  Hence  we  see  that  the  old  tradition  ascribes  the  build- 
ing merely  to  the  Tarquins,  with  whose  names  and  endeavours  it 
is  so  intimately  associated,  without  more  accurately  distinguishing 
between  father  and  son. 

"  The  prodigies  which  are  said  to  have  presented  themselves 
during  the  building  of  the  temple  show  how  much  importance 
tradition,  even  at  an  early  period,  ascribed  to  it.  In  explanation 
of  them  we  may  remark  what  follows.  The  finding  of  the  human 
head  is  an  etymological  myth  derived  from  the  name  of  the  hill. 
This  name  Capitolium — that  is,  Cajntidiun — signifies  simply  a  hill- 
top, which  forms  the  head  (that  is,  the  citadel)  of  the  town  (caput 
urbis).  The  interpretation  of  this  prodigy  by  the  future  Roman 
empire  of  the  world  appears  to  be  ancient ;  perhaps  the  Sibyl- 
line oracles,  which  contained  such  prophecies  of  future  universal 
dominion,  gave  occasion  to  it.  The  second  prodigy,  the  refusal  of 
Terminus  to  remove  from  his  place,  is  an  etiological  mytL  In  the 
cell  of  Jupiter  was  a  stone  resembling  a  boundary  stone;  probably 
the  original  symbol  of  the  god  as  Jupiter  Lapis.  Later  generations 
saw  in  this  stone  a  Terminus  ;  and  thus  arose  the  tradition  that 
Terminus,  in  consequence  of  his  refusal  to  give  place  to  Jupiter, 
was  enclosed  in  his  cell.  To  this  Terminus  the  later  tradition 
referred  the  opening  in  the  roof  of  the  cell  of  Jupiter ;  for  sacrifices 
to  Terminus  were  to  be  performed  in  the  open  air.-  But  this  would 
seem  to  be  a  mistake.  The  reason  for  this  opening  in  the  roof  is 
doubtless  to  be  found  in  the  very  being  of  Jupiter,  as  god  of  heaven. 

1  Buch  xviii.  §  14.  »  Serv.  ^n.  ix.  448  ;  Lact.  Inst.  i.  29,  40." 


i 


Besides  Terminus,  Juventas  is  also  sometimes  named  as  a  deity  that 
would  not  give  place  for  the  Capitoline  Temple ;  but  this  tradition 
is  evidently  an  allegory.  It  is  also  of  later  origin  ;  the  worship 
of  Juventas  having  been  first  introduced  into  the  religion  of  the 
Romans  through  the  Sibylline  books.  Thus,  according  to  Livy 
(xxi.  62),  a  lectisternium  was  prepared  for  Juventas  (Hebe)  in  the 
year,  53G,  according  to  the  Sibylline  books,  in  connexion  with  a 
procession  to  the  Temple  of  Hercules,  to  whom,  according  to  the 
religious  belief  of  the  Greeks,  Hebe  was  married." 

It  can  hardly  be  said  that  tradition  does  not  distinguish  between 
father  and  son,  or  rather  grandson,  when  it  plainly  tells  us  that  the 
temple  was  vowed  and  the  area  for  its  foundation  prepared  by  the 
elder  Tarquin,  and  that  the  building  was  completed,  or  very  nearly 
so,  by  the  younger  Tarquin.  The  exact  steps  in  the  process  it  is 
impossible  now  to  trace  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  do  so,  as  there  cannot 
be  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  main  facts  of  the  tradition  are  true. 

We  abandon  all  the  prodigies  connected  with  the  temple,  and 
we  believe  that  Schwegler  has  properly  explained  the  etymology  of 
the  word  Capitolium.  We  think,  however,  that  there  was  really  a 
stone  representing  the  god  Termiims,  and  not  Jupiter  Lapis,  within 
the  precincts  of  the  temple.  Our  reason  for  thinking  so  is  that 
Ovid,  who  lived  within  five  minutes'  walk  of  the  temple,  describes 
it  as  existing  in  his  time  : 

"  Termiims,  ut  veteres  memorant,  inventus  in  cede 

l^cstitit,  et  magno  cum  Jove  templa  tenet. 
Nunc  quoqucj  se  supra  ne  quid  ni.si  sidera  cernet, 

Exiguum  templi  tecta  foramen  ]ial)ent. 
Tern)ine,  post  illud,  Icvitas  tibi  libera  non  est ; 

Qua  positus  fueris  in  statione,  mane."  i 

Kow  Ovid  was  more  likely  to  know  than  anybody  at  the  present 
time  can  be  whether  the  stone  in  Jupiter's  cell  was  meant  for  that 
deity  or  for  Terminus ;  and  it  is  more  probable  that  the  ^'mistake" 
lies  on  the  side  of  Schwegler  than  on  his.  How  Terminus  got 
there,  and  whether  it  was  an  augural  trick,  is  another  question  ; 
we  are  only  concerned  for  the  fact.  But  even  on  this  point  the 
"  old  tradition"  is  consistent  with  itself;  for  we  have  already  seen  ^ 
that  a  shrine  had  been  dedicated  to  Terminus  by  King  Tatius. 
That  there  was  also  an  aperture  in  the  roof  of  Dius  ridius,^  or 
Sancus,  proves  nothing.     Jupiter,  under  this  form  or  appellation, 

1  Fast.  ii.  067,  seqq.         '  Above,  ]..  100.         '  Yarr.  Ling.  Lat.  v.  66. 


406 


HISTORY    OF   THE   KINGS    OF   IJOME. 


was  peculkrly  appealcJ  to  Ly  tlie  liomans  in  their  oaths — which 
were  to  be  taken  in  the  open  air — as  we  see  by  the  common  exclama- 
tion, "  medius  fidius."  But  this  concerns  not  the  Capitoh'ne  Jupiter, 
nor  exchides  the  necessity  for  an  aperture  in  the  CapitoHne  Temple 
for  the  sake  of  Terminus,  who  was  also  to  be  worship}>e(l  in  the 
open  air.i  And  the  passage  of  Ovid  shows,  by  the  way,  that  tlie 
Temple  of  Jupiter  on  the  Capitol  was  not  hyptethral.  Into  the 
question  about  Juventas  we  need  not  enter. 

The  Capitoline  Temple  is  not  only  in  itself  the  most  striking  and 
authentic  monument  and  record  of  the  Taniuinian  dynasty,  but  it 
also  affords  collateral  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  other  kings.  For 
in  front  of  it  stood  their  statues,  and  in  the  midst  of  them  that  of 
Junius  Brutus,  who  expelled  them.  It  is  certain  that  these  statues 
existed  there  before  the  time  of  the  empire  :  for  it  was  among 
them  that  Gracchus  was  slain  ;  -  and  Julius  Ca'sar  caused  his  own 
statue  to  be  placed  amidst  them, — an  act  which,  among  others, 
naturally  created  a  suspicion  that  he  was  aiming  at  the  regal 
power.  =^  The  hatred  entertained  during  the  republican  times  of 
Kome  against  tlie  very  name  of  king  is  so  notorious  that  it  is 
impossible  to  suppose  that  their  statues  could  have  been  erected 
by  republican  hands  ;  and  tha  only  inference  is  that  they  must 
have  been  set  up  by  the  last  Tarquin  when  he  conqjleted  the 
Capitol.  Tliis  inference  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  Bliny; 
who  regarded  them  as  genuine  relics  of  antiquity,  since  he  appeals 
to  them  as  a  test  respecting  the  ancient  custom  of  wearing  rings, 
and  observes  that  only  the  statues  of  Numa  and  Servius  Tullius 
had  rings,  and  that  they  were  on  the  third  linger,  or  that  next  to 
the  little  linger.^  Xow  it  is  incredible  that,  even  had  there  been 
no  written  records  in  those  times,  the  memory  of  preceding  kings 
should  have  perished  in  about  two  centuries  from  the  establishment 
of  the  monarchy,  or  that  even  Tarquinius  I'riscus,  who  obtained 
the  throne  not  much  more  than  a  century  after  that  event,  should 

^  "  Terminus,  quo  loco  colebatur,  super  eum  foramen  patebat  in  tecto,  quod 
iiefas  esse  putarent  Terminum  intra  tectum  consi.stere."— Paul.  Diac.  p.  3G8, 
'J'^rmimis.  2  Appian,  B.  C.  i.  1(>. 

3  Suet.  C.TS.  76,  80  ;  Dio  Cass,  xliii.  45. 

*  "Nulhim  (annulum)  habet  Konudi  in  Capitolio  statua,  nee  praeter 
Kumse  Serviique  Tullii  alia,  ac  ne  Lucii  quiclem  Bruti.  Hoc  in  Tarquiniis 
maxima  miror,  quorum  a  Gnecia  fuit  origo,"  &c.— H.  N.  xxxiii.  4,  2. 
'^Singulis  primo  di^atis  geri  mos  fuerat,  qui  sunt  minimis  pioximi  :  sic  in 
Numte  et  Servii  Tullii  statuis  videmus."— Ibid.  (>,  0  ;  el",  xxxiv.  11,  Yd, 


F 


I 


THE  STATJE8  OF  THE  KINGS. 


407 


ii 


not  have  introduced  civilization  enough  to  preserve  a  record  of  his 
predecessors.  And  though  the  statues  of  the  earlier  kings  were 
most  probably  executed  liom  imagination,  or  some  faint  traditions 
of  their  personal  appearance,  yet  that  does  not  invalidate  the 
inference  which  we  proi)ose  to  draw  from  them ;  namely,  that  the 
kings  were  real  and  not  fictitious  personages,  and  that  they  bore  the 
names  which  history  ascribes  to  them. 

Schwegler  then  proceeds  to  examine  the  question  of  the  site 
of  the  Capitoline  Temple,  and,  with  most  German  scholars,  places 
it  on  the  Monte  Caprino,  or  south-western  summit  of  the  hill. 
We  are  happy  to  say  that  the  reasons  we  have  given  in  other  works  ^ 
for  thinking  that  it  could  not  have  been  on  that  summit  appear  to 
be  confirmed  by  veiy  recent  excavations  in  the  garden  of  the 
l*alazzo  Caffarelli ;  the  remains  there  discovered  being  quite  at 
variance  with  what  we  are  told  of  the  Ca}>itoline  Temple.-  But 
we  need  not  enter  into  this  merely  topographical  (piestion  ;  and  for 
the  same  reason  we  abstain  from  noticing  what  Schwegler  says 
about  the  Cloaca  ^laxima. 

According  to  Dionysius  and  other  authors,^  it  was  in  the  time  of 
the  younger  Tanpiin  that  the  Cumpean  Sibyl  came  to  liome,  and 
sold  to  that  king  the  fiimous  oracles  afterwards  known  as  the 
Sibylline  books  ;  though  some  authorities  i)lace  this  event  in  the 
reign  of  Tanpunius  Priscus.  It  is  not  mentioned  by  Livy  ;  though 
he  recognises  afterwards  the  existence  of  these  prophecies.  The 
tradition  that  they  were  introduced  in  the  reign  of  the  younger 
Tarquin  is  not  inqirobable,  from  the  connexion  which  that  king 
had  with  Cuniie ;  whatever  we  may  think  of  the  mode  in  whicli 
the  purchase  of  them  is  described.  We  have  already  touched 
briefly  upon  this  subject,  and  add  the  remarks  of  Sehwegler  :  "^  — 

*'The  Koman  Sibylline  oracles  were  of  Greek  origin,  and  com- 
posed in  the  Greek  language.  This  appears  from  the  circumstance 
that  to  the  duumvirs  to  whom  they  were  intrusted  were  also 
assigned  two  Greek  interpreters ;  ^  that  the  prevailing  tradition 
assumes  that  they  were  brought  to  Home  from  Cumse ;  that  when 
the  books  were  destroyed  by  the  burning  of  the  Capitoline  Temple, 

1  See  the  article  on  Kome  in  Dr.  Smith's  Diet,  of  Anc.  Geogi'aphy,  vol.  ii. 
p.  761,  scqq.  ;  and  the  Hist,  of  the  City  of  Kome,  p.  384,  scqq. 

2  See  Reumont,  Gesch.  der  Stadt  Kom.  §  65,  and  Anm.  §  800. 

3  Dionys.  iv.  62;  Plin.  H.  N.  xiii.  27,  §  88  ;  xxxiv.  11,  §  22  ;  Gell.  i.  19  ; 
Solin.  ii.  16,  .sr^y.  ;  Serv.  Mn.  vi.  72,  svqq. 

'  Buth  xviii.  ji  16.  ^  Zonar.  vii.  11. 


408 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


envoi's  were  despatched  to  Greek  cities  in  order  to  find  materials 
for  their  restoration  j  ^  that  the  gods  and  worships  which  jilay  tlie 
chief  part  in  them  belong  to  the  Greek  religion,  and  are  unknown 
in  that  of  Kome  ;  lastly,  that  the  Eonians  themselves  regarded  the 
religious  observances  and  worships  connected  with  the  Sibylline 
books  as  a  ( Jreek  portion  of  their  religion.  ('  Et  nos  dicimus  xvi. 
viros'— for  consulting  the  books— '  Gneco  ritu  sacra,  non  liomano 
facere,'  Yarr.  L.  L.  vii.  88,  with  iAliiUer's  note.)  Moreover  the 
Sibylline  oracles  were  in  hexameters  : 

"  *  To  (luce  Koiiiiuios  nuiKiuain  fnistrata  Sibylla 
Alxlita  rpuL'  seiiis  fiita  cauit  pudibus  ; '  2 

not  therefore,  as  might  have  been  expected  if  they  were  of  home 
growth,  composed  in  the  Saturnian  metre.  If  all  these  indications 
leave  no  doubt  of  the  Greek  origin  of  the  IJoman  Sibylline  verses, 
the  acceptance  of  them  in  Ptome,  and  the  authority"^  which  they 
acquired  there,  are  a  significant  indication  of  that  favourable 
spirit  in  which  the  Hellenistic  culture  and  religion  were  regarded 
in  the  Tarquinian  epoch ;  and  all  the  more  remarkable,  as  the 
earliest  religion  of  the  llomans  otherwise  betrays  a  spirit  of  rigid 
exclusiveness  towards  foreign  religions. 

*'  That  the  Sibylline  verses  were  brought  to  Rome  from  Cuuub 
is  almost  the  unanimous  lloman  tradition,  and  can  in  no  respect  be 
doubted.  This  circumstance  is  a  proof  of  the  lively  intellectual 
commerce  which  was  maintained  between  Home  and  Cumre  under 
the  Tarquinian  dynasty. 

"The  Sibylline  books  exercised  a  considerable  influence  on  the 
Eomau  religion.  They  introduced  into  it  a  number  of  foreign, 
and  for  the  most  part  Greek,  worships  :  as  the  worship  of  ApoUo' 
to  whom,  in  consequence  of  a  great  i)estilence,  the  first  temple  was 
dedicated  in  the  year  321  ;  that  of  Latona,  for  whom,  in  conjunction 
with  Apollo,  Artemis,  and  other  Greek  deities,  a  lectisternium  was 
prepared,  in  consequence  of  the  epidemic  of  the  year  355  ;  the 
worship^ of  .^sculapius,  who  was  brought  from  Epidaurus  in  the 
year  4G3,  to  avert  a  pestilence  which  had  lasted  several  years  ;  the 
worship  of  Hebe  (Juventas),  to  whom  a  lectisternium  was  decreed 
in  536  ;  lastly— to  pass  over  originally  national  deities,  as  A'enus, 
Ceres,   and   Salus— the  worship  of  the  Idrcan  mother,    wlio,  by 

^  Tar.  Ann.  vl.  1-2  ;  Dionvs.  iv.  62  :  Lact.  Inst,  i    0    H 
2  TibuU.  ii.  '..  IK. 


THE   SIBYLLINE   BOOKS. 


400 


f' 


command  of  the  Sibylline  oracles,  was  brought  from  Pessinus  in 
Phrygia  in  the  year  549.  The  Sibylline  books  were  the  occasion 
and  chief  source  of  the  syncretic  blending  of  the  lloman  religion 
with  the  Greek." 

To  these  remarks  we  have  nothing  to  object. 

AVe  now  approach  the  catastrophe  which  led  to  the  downfall  of 
Tartpiin  and  the  monarchy. 


MISSION   TO   DELrill — L.   JUNIUS    BRUTUS— DEATH   OF 
LUCKETIA — EXPULSION   OF   THE   TARQUINS. 

AVhile  Tanjuin  was  intent  upon  the  affairs  before  related,  a 
terrible  portent  presented  itself.  A  snake,  gliding  forth  from 
a  wooden  column,  caused  great  alarm  and  a  rush  into  the 
palace  ;  and  though  the  king  himself  was  not  struck  with 
any  sudden  terror  at  the  sight,  yet  it  filled  his  breast  with 
anxious  forebodings  for  the  future.  \Mierefore,  as  in  the 
interpretation  of  public  prodigies  Etruscan  soothsayers  only 
were  employed,  he  determined,  on  the  occasion  of  this  domestic 
one,  to  send  to  Delphi  to  consult  the  oracle,  the  most  renowned 
one  in  the  w^orld.  And  being  unwilling  to  confide  the  response 
to  strangers,  he  despatched  into  Greece  his  two  sons,  Titus 
and  Aruns,  through  lands  at  that  time  little  known,  and  seas 
still  less  explored.  And  he  gave  them  as  a  companion  L. 
Junius  Brutus,  the  son  of  his  sister  Tarquinia,  a  young  man 
of  a  very  different  understanding  from  that  of  which  he  had 
assumed  the  appearance;  for,  having  heard  that  his  uncle 
liad  ])ut  to  death  the  chief  men  of  the  city,  and  among  them 
his  brother,  lie  resolved  so  to  act  that  neither  his  mind  nor 
his  fortune  should  cause  the  king  any  alarm.  He  therefore 
assumed  the  appearance  of  an  idiot,  suffered  the  king  to  do 
what  he  liked  with  himself  and  his  property,  and  even  spurned 
not  the  surname  of  P>rutus,  that,  under  the  shelter  of  so 
degrading  an  epithet,  the  soul  that  was  to  be  the  liberator  of 
the  Eoman  people  might  bide  its  opportunity.  Being  thus 
led  by  the  Tarquins  to  Delplii,  not  so  nmch  as  a  companion 
as  a  butt  to  make  sport  of,  he  is  said  to  have  carried  thither, 
as  an  ofl'ering  to  Apollo,  a  golden  stick,  enclosed  in  one  of 


"fMiSSiM&iil 


^^l^W^^ 


410 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS   OF   KOME. 


co^nel-^vood,  wliicli  lie  had  hollowed  out  for  the  purpose,--a 
type  of  his  own  mind.  After  arriving  at  Delphi,  and  dis- 
charging their  father's  mission,  the  youths  were  seized  with  a 
desire  to  know  which  of  them  would  obtain  the  Eonian  king- 
dom ;  and  to  their  incpiiries  an  answer  was  returned  from  the 
lowest  depths  of  the  cavern  to  the  following  effect :  ''  The 
chief  command  at  Eome,  0  youths,  will  be  obtained  by  him 
among  you  who  shall  first  kiss  his  mother."  The  Tarquins, 
in  order  that  Sextus,  who  had  been  left  behind  at  Home,' 
might  not  know  the  response,  and  thus  lose  his  chance  of 
reigning,  directed  the  nuitter  to  be  kept  as  secret  as  possible, 
and  decided  between  themselves  by  lot  which  should  first 
kiss  his  mother  on  their  return.  But  Brutus,  who  thought 
that  the  Pythian  oracle  had  another  meaning,  pretending 
accidentally  to  stumble,  gave  the  earth  a  kiss,  that  being  the 
common  mother  of  all  men.  So  they  returned  to  Rome,  where 
a  war  against  the  liutuli  was  in  active  preparation. 

Ardea  was  at  that  time  in  possession  of  the  Ihituli— a 
people  very  wealthy  for  that  age  and  country ;  wdiich,  indeed, 
was  the  cause  of  the  war.  For  the  lionian  king,  besides 
having  exhausted  his  treasury  by  the  magnificen'c'e  of  his 
public  wwks,  wanted  moreover  to  conciliate  the  people  by 
a  division  of  booty ;  for  tliey  hated  his  reign,  not  only  on 
account  of  his  pride  in  general,  but  also  because  they  were 
indignant  at  l)eing  so  long  employed  in  servile  and  degrading 
labour  as  workmen  and  artisans. 

It  was  first  attempted  to  take  Ardea  by  assault ;  but  as 
this  did  not  succeed,  regular  siege  was  laid  to  the  place,  and 
an  entrenched  camp  established.  In  such  quarters,  as  always 
hai)pens  in  a  long  rather  than  a  brisk  war,  furloughs  w^ere 
freely  granted,  though  more  to  the  officers  than  men.  The 
royal  princes  sometimes  amused  their  leisure  with  feastin^r 
and  conviviality ;  and  it  happened  that  as  they  were  drink° 
ing  together  in  the  quarters  of  Sextus  Tarquinius,  where  Tar- 
quinius  Collatinus,  the  son  of  Egerius,  w^as  also  supping,  some 
talk  ensued  about  their  wives,  and  each  began  wonderfully 
to  extol  his  own.  As  the  dispute  grew  warm,  Collatinus 
remarked  "that   there  was  no  need  of  words;  it  mi<'ht  1)e 


SEXTCS   TARQUINIUS   AND   LUCRETIA. 


411 


ascertained  in  a  few  hours  how  much  his  Lucretia  excelled  the 

rest.     Come,  if  you  have  any  youthful  vigour,  let  us  mount 

ouL'  horses,  and  ascertain  the   disposition  of  our  wives  by 

paying  them  a   visit.      There    can  be  no  better  ])roof   than 

what  shall  meet   our   eyes  on   so   unexpected   a    call"     All 

answered,  "  Come  on  !"  for  they  w^ere  excited  with  wine  ;  and 

they  spurred  on  at  a  gallop  to  Rome.     They  arrived  there  as 

night  was  falling,  and  discovered  the  king's  daughters-in-law 

amusing  themseves,  with  other  high-born  dames,  in  luxurious 

conviviality.     Thence  they  proceeded  to  Collatia,  where  they 

found   Lucretia  sitting   late    at   night  in  the  midst  of  her 

household,  spinning  wool  with  her  maid-servants ;    and  thus 

Lucretia  carried  off  the  palm  in  this  trial  of  female  worth. 

She  welcomed  the  arrival  of  her  husband  and  the  Tarquins, 

and  the  victorious  Collatinus  hospitably  invited  the  royal 

youths  to  stay.     Here  Sextus  Tarquinius,  inflamed  both  by 

the  beauty  and  the  a[)i)i'oved  chastity  of  Lucretia,  conceived 

the    wicked    design    of   forcibly    dishonouring    her.     But   at 

present  they  returned  to  the  camp  after  their  nocturnal  and 

juvenile  freak. 

After  the  lapse  of  a  few  days,  Sextus  Tarquinius,  with  a 
single  companion,  returned  to  Colhitia,  without  the  know^- 
ledge  of  Collatinus.     As  all  were  ignorant  of  his  design,  he 
was  kindly  received,  and  conducted,  after  supper,  to  his  bed- 
chamber.   But  being  inflamed  with  hist,  so  soon  as  all  around 
seemed  quiet  and  everybody  asleep,  he  entered,  with  drawn 
sword,  the  apartment  of  Lucretia,  and,  placing  his  left  hand 
on  her  breast,  said  :  "  Utter  not  a  word,  Lucretia !    I  am 
Sextus  Tarquinius.     IViiold  my  sword!  if  thou  niakest  any 
noise,  thou  shalt  die."     Great  was  the  fright  of  Lucretia  at 
being  thus  awakened,  and  menaced  with  immediate  death, 
withotit  the  hope  of  succour.     Then  Tarquin  confessed  his 
love:  used  prayers  and  entreaties,  mingled  with  threats;  tried 
every  effort  to  overcome  that  female  mind.    But  when  he  saw 
that  she  was  determined  to  resist,  and  coidd  not  be  subdued 
even  by  the  fear  of  death,  he  added  a  threat  of  dishonour ;  he 
would  place,  he  said,  beside  her  dead  body  the  naked  corpse 
of  a  slave,  and  give  out  that  she  had  been  detected  and  slain 


412 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


in  that  base  adultery.     By  this  terrible  threat  lust  gained, 
as  it  were,  the  victory,  and  triumphed  over  that  obstinate 
chastity ;  and  Tarquin  departed,  exulting  in  his  conquest  of 
female  honour.     But  Lucretia,  overwhelmed  with  the  sense 
of  so  great  a  misfortune,  despatched  a  messenger  to  her  father 
at  Eome,  and  her  husband  at  Ardea,   beseeching  tliem  to 
come  to  her,  each  accompanied  by  a  single  faithful  friend ; 
something  atrocious  had  occurred,  which  required  action,  and 
that  speedily.     Sp.  Lucretius  came  with  P.  \"alerius  the  son 
of  Yolesus ;  Collatinus  with  L.  Junius  Brutus,  wliom  he  had 
accidentally  met  when  returning  to  Borne,  after  his  wife's 
message.     On  their  arrival  at  Collatia  they  found  Lucretia 
sitting  in  her  bed-chamber,  overwhelmed  with  sorrow.     To 
her  husband's  question  whether  she  was  well,  she  answered : 
"  Xo ;   for  what  can  be  well  with   a  woman   robbed   of  her 
honour  ?     The  traces  of  anotlier  man  are  in  thy  bed,  Colla- 
tinus.    But  it  is  my  body  alone  that  has  been  defiled ;  my 
mind  is  guiltless,  as  my  death  shall  testify.     Come,  pledge 
me  with  your  right  hands  tliat  the  adulterer  shall  not  go 
un|)unished.     Sextus  Tarquinius  was  he  who,  coming  hither 
as  an  enemy  instead  of  a  guest,  w4th  arms  and  violence, 
ravished  from  me  last  night  a  fatal  pleasure — fatal  to  himself 
as  well  as  me,  if  you  be  but  men."  All  pledged  themselves  in 
turn,  and  endeavoured  to  assuage  her  grief,  representing  that 
the  crime  lay  not  with  her,  who  had  been  forced,  but  witli 
the  author  of  her  shame;  that  the  mind  alone  was  capable  of 
sin,  and  not  the  body  ;  and  that  where  the  will  was  absent,  no 
crime  could  be  imputed.     To  all  which  she  replied  :  "  It  will 
be  for  you  to  see  what  Tarquin  merits ;  as  for  myself,  though 
I  absolve  myself  of  sin,  yet  I  will  not  free  myself  from 
punishment.    Xo  wanton  shall  henceforth  live,  and  plead  the 
example  of  Lucretia."     Then  suddenly  she  pierced  herself  to 
the  heart  with  a  knife  which  she  had  concealed  under  her 
robe,  and  fell  upon  the  floor  in  the  agonies  of  death,  while 
her  husband  and  her  father  vented  their  sorrow  in  unavailing 
lamentations. 

While  tliese  were  absorbed  in  grief,  Brutus,  ])lucking  the 
knife  from  Lucretia's  wound,  and  holding  it  u]).  all  reeking 


DEATH   OF  LUCRETIA. 


413 


with  gore,  before  him,  exclaimed :  "  I  swear  by  this  most 
chaste  blood,  before  it  was  contaminated  by  royalty,  and  call 
you,  0  gods,  to  witness  my  oath,  that  I  will  pursue  Lucius 
Tarquinius  Superbus,  his  wicked  wife,  and  all  his  children, 
with  fire  and  sword,  and  whatever  other  violence  I  can  ;  and 
that  I  will  suffer  neither  them  nor  any  other  person  to  reign 
at  Eome."  Then  he  handed  the  dao^rer  in  turn  to  Collatinus, 
to  Lucretius,  and  to  Valerius,  who  all  stood  wondering  how, 
by  a  miracle,  a  now  intellect  seemed  to  have  sprung  iTp  in 
Brutus.  And  as  he  bade  them,  so  they  swore  ;  while,  anger 
and  indignation  taking  the  place  of  grief,  they  followed  Brutus 
as  their  leader,  who  exhorted  them  at  once  to  overthrow  the 
monarchy.  So  they  carried  tlie  body  of  Lucretia  from  the 
house  into  the  Forum,  where  a  crowd  soon  gathered  round, 
attracted  as  well  by  the  novelty  of  the  matter  as  l)y  the 
indignation  which  naturally  arose  in  their  breasts.  Then 
each  of  the  four  in  turn  denounced  the  prince's  violence  and 
crime  ;  and  the  hearts  of  the  bystanders  were  equally  touched 
by  the  sorrow  of  the  father  and  by  the  bearing  of  Brutus, 
who,  rejjroving  all  tears  and  useless  lamentations,  exhorted 
them,  as  became  men  and  Bomans,  to  take  up  arms  against 
those  who  had  thus  ventured  to  give  the  signal  for  hostilities. 
The  most  ardent  of  the  youth  at  once  volunteered  their  ser- 
vices, and  were  soon  followed  by  the  rest.  Then,  having  left 
a  guard  at  the  gates  of  Collatia,  and  appointed  persons  to 
watch  and  prevent  any  notice  of  the  rising  being  carried  to 
the  royal  family,  the  rest,  having  armed  themselves,  followed 
Brutus  to  Bome.  This  armed  multitude,  on  arriving  at  Bome, 
spread  terror  and  tumult  wheresoever  they  appeared;  but 
Vv'hen  it  was  seen  that  some  of  the  chief  men  of  the  city  were 
its  leaders,  it  was  concluded  that,  whatever  the  affair  might 
be,  it  was  no  rash  undertaking.  The  atrocity  of  the  crime 
of  Tarquin,  when  known  at  Bome,  occasioned  there  no  less 
excitement  than  it  had  done  at  Collatia,  and  a  rush  was  con- 
sequently made  into  the  Foruni  from  all  parts  of  the  city ; 
for  thither  a  herald  summoned  them  to  attend  upon  the 
tribune  of  the  Celeres,  in  which  office  Brutus  happened  to  be 
at  that  time.    There  he  addressed  them  in  a  style  which  very 


f'-?i)SiJi:iS}M&iXiMU'A:MsSsiMlMiM0iMS£i 


414 


HISTORY    OF   THE    KIXGS   OF   KOME. 


ill  corresponded  with  tlie  disposition  and  understanding  wliidi 
he  had  hitherto  simulated,  expatiating  upon  the  lust  and 
violence  of  Sextus  Tarquinius,  the  unspeakable  dishonour 
and  miserable  suicide  of  Lucretia,  the  bereavement  of  Lucre- 
tius Tricipitinus,  whose  grief  and  indignation  at  the  death  of 
his  daughter  were  rendered  more  bitter  bv  the  cause  of  it. 
Then  he  proceeded  to  denounce  the  pride  of  the  kinL*"  himself, 
and  to  paint  the  misery  and  labours  of  the  people,  compelled 
to  dig  ditches  and  drains  ;  that  Eomans,  the  conquerors  of 
all  the  surrounding  peoples,  should  be  turned,  forsooth,  into 
labourers  and  stone-cutters,  instead  of  warriors.  l[e  recalled 
to  their  recollection  the  cruel  and  undeserved  murder  of  Kin^r 
Servius  Tullius,  and  his  daughter  riding  over  her  father's 
body  in  her  accursed  chariot,  and  invoked  the  gods  who  are 
the  avengers  of  parents.  Eeciting  all  these  things,  and  also 
others,  1  believe,  still  more  atrocious,  but  which  the  present 
state  of  things  under  which  we  live  makes  it  difficult  for 
a  writer  to  repeat,  he  goaded  on  the  incensed  nudtitude  to 
abrogate  the  king's  wiprrhnn,  and  to  sentence  L.  Tarquinius 
to  exile,  together  with  his  wife  and  children.  He  himself, 
with  a  chosen  body  of  the  youth  in  arms,  who  vied  with  one 
another  in  enrolling  themselves,  proceeded  to  the  camp  at 
Ardea,  in  order  to  incite  the  armv  against  the  kin^ ;  leaving 
the  command  at  Eome  to  Lucretius,  whom  Tarquin  had  pre- 
viously made  prefect  of  the  city.  Tullia,  amidst  the  tumult, 
fled  from  the  palace;  both  men  and  women  execrating  her 
wdierever  she  appeared,  and  invoking  against  her  the  furies 
that  avenge  the  violation  of  filial  piety. 

The  news  of  these  disturbances  having  been  carried  to  the 
camp,  the  king,  alarmed  at  this  new  aspect  of  affairs,  set  off 
for  Rome  to  restore  peace ;  while  Brutus,  wdio  w^as  travelling 
the  same  road,  and  perceived  his  approach,  turned  a  little 
aside  to  avoid  meeting  liim  ;  and  thus  almost  at  the  same 
time,  but  by  different  routes,  Brutus  reached  Ardea  and  Tar- 
quinius Eome.  But  Tarquin  found  the  gates  shut,  and  that 
he  was,  in  fact,  an  exile ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  Brutus 
was  joyfully  received  in  the  camp  as  the  liberator  of  the 
city.     The  king's  children  wore  also  expelled ;  two  of  whom 


EXPULSION    OF    THE    TARQUIXS. 


4M 


w^ent  with  their  father  into  exile  to  Ca^re,  in  Etruria.  Sextus 
Tarquinius,  who  had  proceeded  to  Gabii,  as  if  it  wxre  his 
own  kingdom,  was  killed  by  the  avengers  of  those  ancient 
grudges  which  he  had  brought  upon  himself  by  his  rapine 
and  murders. 

L.  Tarquinius  Superbus  reigned  five-and-tw^enty  years.  The 
whole  duration  of  the  regal  period  at  Eome,  from  the  building 
of  the  city  to  its  liberation,  was  two  hundred  and  forty-four 
years.  Two  consuls  were  now  created  l)y  the  prefect  of  the 
city  in  the  Comitia  Centuriata,  agreeably  to  the  commentaries 
of  Servius  Tullius.  These  were  L.  Junius  Brutus  and  L. 
Tarquini us  Collatinus. 

Eemarks. — On  the  proceeding  narrative  Schwegler  observes  :^ 
"That  the  outrage  conmiitted  by  one  of  the  king's  sons  on  the 
daughter  of  Lucretius  Tricipitinus  gave  the  external  impetus  to  this 
revolution  is  sufficiently  credible.  Thus  we  find  in  the  Greek  cities 
also,  and  in  the  Italian  states  in  the  later  portion  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  that  no  cause  has  more  frequently  occasioned  the  overthrow 
either  of  usurped  or  inherited  principalities  than  the  forcible  dis- 
honouring of  women  or  boys  ;  and  the  Eoman  history  itself  presents 
another  example  of  a  similar  revolution  from  a  like  cause.  But  tlie 
circumstances  connected  in  the  history  with  tlie  commission  of  the 
crime  have  no  pretensions  to  historical  credibility.  They  belong 
partly  to  poetical  legend,  and  partly  to  literary  embellishment. 

*'  In  like  manner  are  to  be  regarded  all  the  details  with  which 
the  fall  of  Tarquin  and  his  expulsion  from  the  city  are  related. 
"When  the  annalists  wrote,  the  memory  of  the  actual  circumstances 
with  which  the  catastrophe  was  accompanied  was  extinct.  But 
we  may  conjecture  that  the  revolution  was  not  so  smoothly  and 
easily  accomplished  as  it  appears  to  have  been  in  the  narratives 
of  the  historians.  The  Tarquins  had  a  party  devoted  to  them, 
and  assuredly  they  were  not  driven  from  Eome  till  after  severe  and 
bloody  contests." 

With  much  of  what  is  here  said  we  are  inclined  to  agree.  The 
tyranny  and  the  crimes  of  Tarquin  and  his  family  have  probably 
been  very  much  exaggerated ;  not,  however,  we  think,  by  popular 
legend,  or  even  by  literary  embellishment,  if  by  such  embellish- 

1   Bncli  viii.  5  1 7. 


416 


HISTORY   OF   THE    KINGS   OF    ROME. 


nient  we  are  to  luulerstand  the  narratives  of  the  professed  liistovians 
of  later  times.  We  believe  these  narratives  to  have  been  much 
earlier  than  the  time  of  Fabiiis,  and  to  have  been  contained  in 
private  memoirs  of  tlie  patrician  families,  reaching  perhaps  up  to 
the  times  of  the  events  which  they  record ;  and  tliat  the  exaggera- 
tions which  they  contain  were  the  result  of  party  spirit. 

It  seems  very  probaljle,  as  Schweglor  remarks,  that  the  outrage 
upon   Lucretia  was   the   immediate   occasion  of  the    fall   of  the 
monarchy.     So  striking  an  event,  in  connexion  with  so  great  a 
revolution,  and  one  so  universally  confirmed  by  ancient  testimony, 
can  hardly  have  been  an  invention.     But  it  was  only  the  occasion, 
and  not  the  cause,  of  the  revolution.     The  actual  cause  lies  much 
deeper.     An  outrage,  however  brutal,  on  the   part  of  one  of  the 
king's  sons,  would  not  have  produced  not  only  the  expulsion  of 
Tarquin  and  his  family,  but  also  the  great  constitutional  change  of 
a  republic  for  a  monarchy,  unless  there  had  been  already  in  the 
state  a  powerful  party  that  meditated  such  a  revolution.     We  have 
already  seen  the  patrician  families,  after  the   death  of  Romulus, 
endeavouring  to  substitute  their  own  rule  for  that  of  a  king.     An 
aristocratic  republic  in  the  hands  of  the  great  families  appears  to 
have  remained  a  favourite  idea  among  the  patricians,  though  for  a 
long  period  they  were  unable  to  realize  it.     It  was  apparently  by 
way  of  counterpoise  that  we  find  Tarquinius  Priscus  doubling  the 
Senate,  with  the  view  of  securing  for  himself  a  strong  party  in  that 
assembly.     The  scheme  for  a  republic  appears  from  the  Commen- 
taries of  Servius  Tullius  to  have  been  subsequently  adopted  by  that 
king,   and  was  probably  the  cause  of  his  overthrow  by  Tarquin. 
The  reactionary  policy  of  Tarquin  led  him  to  depress  and  persecute 
the  Senate.     The  fall  of  Tarquin  was  produced  by  a  counter-revo- 
lution organized  by  the  old  patrician  families ;  and  thus  we  find 
that  the  first  care  of  the  new  consuls  was  to  fill  up  and  auf^ment 
the  number  of  the  Senate. 

The  conjecture  of  Schwegler,  that  Tarquin  and  his  party  were  not 
driven  from  Eome  till  after  severe  and  bloody  contests,  is  not  only 
unsupported  by  evidence,  but  is  also  improbable  in  itself.  The 
final  decision  of  the  matter  would  have  lain  with  the  army  then 
assembled  before  Ardea,  whose  aid  and  suffrage  Brutus  hastened  to 
obtain.  Had  the  army— that  is,  in  other  words,  the  elite  of  the 
Roman  citizens,  and  especially  those  centuries  of  the  knights  and 
of  the  prima  chmis  which    in    the   Comitia   Centuriata    enjoyed 


REFLECTIONS   OX   THE   FALL   OF   TARQUIX. 


417 


almost  a  monopoly  of  the  suffrage — been  in  f\xvour  of  Tarquin,  the 
revolution  could  never  have  been  accomplished  ;  but,  being  adverse 
to  him,  his  deposition  was  sudden  and  complete.  Tarquin,  no 
doubt,  had  a  small  party  attached  to  his  interests  :  what  monarch 
has  not  1  But  of  anything  like  a  civil  war  we  find  no  trace  in  the 
historians ;  it  would,  indeed,  have  been  totally  incompatible  with 
the  course  of  the  history,  and  especially  with  the  treaty  of  Carthage 
concluded  in  the  first  years  of  the  Republic. 

"  How  legendary  in  general,"  continues  Schwegler,  **  is  still  the 
history  of  those  times  is  particularly  manifest  in  the  person  and 
reputed  idiocy  of  Junius  Brutus.  What  consistency  is  there  in  the 
story  that  Tarquin  should  have  bestowed  the  dignity  of  a  Tribunus 
Celerum  on  an  idiot  who  was  no  longer  master  of  his  own  property, 
— a  dignity  which  was  the  highest  in  the  state  after  that  of  a  king, 
— an  office  which  in  a  despotic  kingdom  was  of  the  greatest  possible 
importance,  and  Avhich,  moreover,  from  the  sacerdotal  functions  con- 
nected with  it,  could  not  have  been  discharged  by  such  a  person  ?  It 
is  related  also  that  Brutus  accompanied  the  king's  sons  to  Delphi ; 
and  if  we  ask  how  they  came  to  take  an  idiot  with  them  on  such  a 
journey,  tradition  gives  the  silly  answer,  '  In  order  to  have  with  them 
somebody  they  might  make  sport  of.'  In  Delphi,  Brutus  presents 
the  god  with  a  gold  stick.  We  may  ask,  How  did  he  find  means  to 
make  so  rich  a  present,  as  the  king  had  confiscated  his  whole  pro- 
perty, and  had  left  him,  as  Dionysius  says,  only  enough  for  his 
daily  subsistence  ?  But  all  these  questions  would  have  been  in 
their  place  if  we  had  to  do  with  actual  histori(^al  facts.  The  idiocy 
of  Brutus  is  an  etymological  myth  founded  upon  his  name,  and 
appears,  moreover,  to    rest    upon   a   false    interpretation    of  his 


name 


>> 


So  striking  an  event  as  the  fall  of  the  Tarquins  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Republic  must  naturally  have  become  the  subject  of 
popular  conversation  and  popular  legend,  and  hence  of  embellish- 
ment and  exaggeration.  But  the  main  outline  of  the  stoiy  there 
is  no  reason  to  doubt ;  that  Tai(|uin  was  overthrown  l)y  a  revo- 
lution conducted  by  Brutus,  Lucretius  Tricipitinus,  Tarquinius 
CoUatinus,  and  Valerius  Publicola.  The  Fasti,  which  contain  the 
names  of  these  persons  as  the  consuls  of  the  first  year  of  the 
Republic,  corroborate  the  historical  tradition.  It  is  possible,  as 
Schwegler  remarks,  that  the  name  of  Brutus  may  have  suggested  the 
'  story  about  his  feigned  idiocy.    In  ancient  Latin,  however,  it  seems 

!•:  E 


418 


HISTORY    OF   THE    KIXGS   OF   ROME. 


to  have  denoted  '' severe."  ^  Cicero  says  nothing  of  his  pre- 
tended folly,  but  alludes  only  to  liis  courage  and  understanding.- 

The  following  remarks  of  Sclivvegler's  ^  on  the  general  character 
of  Tarquin's  reign  are,  with  some  exceptions,  worthy  of  attention  :  — 

"  Tlie  general  outlines  of  tlie  history  of  the  second  Tarquin  may 
pass  for  historical.  That  with  the  help  of  the  patricians  he  hurled 
Servius  from  the  throne,  exercised  as  king  a  strong  and  glorious, 
but  also  oppressive  and  arbitrary  rule,  and  was  at  last  overthrown  by 
a  conspiracy  of  the  patricians— all  this  cannot  be  consistently  ques- 
tioned. The  history  of  the  last  king  stands  on  the  boundaries 
of  the  legendary  and  mystic  period  and  of  the  transition  to  the 
historical  times. 

"  It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  his  image  was  at  an  early  period 
deformed  by  patrician  hate  and  painted  with  dark  and  exaggerated 
shades.  The  memory  of  Sp.  Cassius,  Sp.  IMielius,  and  M.  IVlanlius, 
consequently  of  men  who  already  belong  to  the  time  of  record,  has 
in  like  manner  been  falsified  and  misrepresented  thi-ough  the  hate 
of  the  ruling  party.  The  patricians  were  all  the  more  led  to  paint 
the  portrait  of  the  last  king  in  repulsive  colours,  as  they  had  the 
greater  interest  to  place  a  moral  bar  to  that  monarchical  form  of 
government  which  they  detested.  The  details  of  Tarquin's  tyranny 
must  therefore  be  rejected,  and  the  more,  as  the  historians  have 
evidently  taken  a  pleasure  in  painting  him  as  the  image,  or  special 
type,  of  a  tyrant.  The  later  writers  especially  have  in  this  given 
the  reins  to  their  fancy.  Thus  one  relates  that  Tarijuin  invented 
instruments  of  torture,  and  then  that  he  abused  boys  and  virgins, 
tl'c.4  But  whilst  we  reject  exaggerations  and  inventions  of  this 
sort,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  rule  of  the  last  Tarquin  was 
really  unconstitutional  and  despotic,  harsh  and  oppressive. 

"In  general,  Tarquin  bears  a  great  resemblance  to  the  Greek 
tyrants  of  the  older  times.     Like  these,  he  is  a  clever  and  enter- 

'  "Brutum  antiqiii  gravem  dioebaiit  "-Paul.  Diac.  p.  31.  According  to 
some  authorities  the  moutli  of  June  Avas  named  after  Brutus.  '•Nonmilli 
putaverunt  Junium  mensem  a  Junio  Biuto,  qni  primus  Ronue  consul  fa.tus 
est,  nommatum  ;  quod  hoc  mense,  id  est,  Calendis  Juuiis,  pulso  Tar.|uinio 
sacnim  Carna?  deoe  in  Crelio  monte  voti  reus  fecerit."— Macrob.  Sat.  i.  12. 

2  *'Tum  viringenio  et  virtute  pra^stans  L.  Brutus  depulit  a  civibus  suis 
mjustum  illud  duroe  servitutis  jugum,"  &c.— De  Rep   ii   25 

3  Buch  xiii.  §^  10,  11. 

4  These  stories  are  taken  from  such  authors  as  Theopliilus  (Bishoi.  <.f 
Autiorh),  Hieronymus,  John  bydus,  &c. 


IIISTORKLVL   CHARACTER   OF   TARQUIN. 


419 


i 


prising  prince,  a  lover  of  art  and  splendour,  but  without  consi- 
deration, and  reckless  of  the  means  which  he  uses.  But  he  i)ar- 
ticularly  recalls  the  Hellenic  tyrants  by  the  magnificence  of  his 
buildings.  For  the  older  Greek  tyrants  also  sought  reputation  by 
encouraging  the  arts,  and  to  perpetuate  their  name  by  s])lendid  or 
useful  monuments.  Aristotle  enumerates  among  the  arts  of  rule 
exercised  by  despotic  monarchs  the  erection  of  great  and  costly 
buildings  :  a  people  who  had  been  robbed  of  their  freedom  would 
be  thus  kept  employed,  and  at  the  same  time  rendered  poor.  But 
this  was  certainly  not  the  only  motive  wdiich  influenced  the  Greek 
tyrants  or  the  Iloman  Tarquin  in  these  buildings  and  creations  of 
art,  but  chiefly  the  view  of  giving  their  reign  a  certain  appearance 
of  something  out  of  the  common,  and  of  marking  it  by  magnifi- 
cence and  splendour.  Tarquin  also  resembles  the  Greek  tyrants 
of  that  epoch  in  the  circumstance  that  he  seeks  to  support  his 
dominion  by  foreign  alliances,  marriages,  hospitality,  and  con- 
nexions with  the  princes  or  ruling  families  of  neighbouring  cities. 
Lastly,  like  the  (J reek  tyrants  almost  universally,  he  incurs  the 
hatred,  not  so  much  of  the  demos  ov  plebs,  as  of  the  patricians,  by 
whom  he  is  at  last  overthrown. 

"It  is  particularly  remarkable  that,  in  spite  of  the  apparent 
estrangement  between  Italy  and  Greece,  a  certain  parallelism  may 
still  be  traced  in  the  political  development  of  their  inhabitants. 
As  the  old  Boman  constitution,  founded  on  families,  answ^ers  to  the 
old  Attic,  so  the  Servian  constitution,  resting  on  the  census,  cor- 
responds with  the  contemporary  one  of  Solon  ;  the  Servian  division 
of  tribes  with  that  made  by  Clisthenes.  And  so  the  younger  Tar- 
fjuin  resembles  Pisistratus,  who  Ibllows  Solon,  just  as  Tarquin 
follows  Servius  Tullius. 

*'  If  we  examine  more  closely  the  political  character  of  the  reign 
of  the  younger  Tarquin,  its  main  tendency  seems  to  be  the  realiza- 
tion of  that  idea  of  which  the  creation  of  the  Capitoline  Temple 
and  worship  is  the  symbolical  expression — the  formation  of  the 
monarchy  into  a  unity,  the  removal  of  the  bars  which  had  till  then 
divided  the  nation  both  in  religion  and  politics,  had  hindered  its 
development,  and  crippled  its  power  of  action.  In  this  view  Tar- 
quin follows  up  the  endeavours  of  his  immediate  predecessor,  but 
by  difterent  means ;  not,  namely,  by  the  development  of  the  exist- 
ing constitution,  but  by  founding  an  unlimited  monarchy.  Tar- 
quinius  also  evidently  aimed  at  converting  the   Boman  kingdom, 

!•  !•:  2 


420 


HISTORY   OF  THE   KINGS  OF   ROME. 


which  had  hitherto  constitutionally  been  an  elective  monarchy, 
into  an  hereditary  one.  Hence  it  naturally  followed  that  through 
these  endeavours,  and  tliis  system  of  government,  he  drew  down 
upon  himself  the  implacable  hatred  of  tlie  patricians." 

"  It  is  more  doubtful  what  attitude  Tarquin  assumed  with  regard 
to  the  /?/eis.  The  Greek  tyrants  of  the  older  times  for  the  most 
part  sought  support  in  the  demos,  and  favoured  it  when  they  could. 
Tliis  policy  was  the  result  of  their  position  with  regard  to  the 
oligarchical  party,  as  well  as  of  their  own  origin ;  for  the  greater 
part  of  them  rose  from  being  demagogues.  But  the  younger  Tar- 
quin  obtained  the  throne  in  another  manner :  according  to  all 
indications,  he  sought  to  support  his  monarchy  by  foreign  alliances, 
though  indications  are  not  w^anting  which  show  that  his  relations 
to  the  piths  were  no  hostile  ones  ;  nay,  even  j^erhaps  that  they  were 
friendly.  When  Porsena,  as  Livy  relates,^  appeared  before  the 
walls  of  the  city,  the  Senate  directed  all  its  attention  to  the  com- 
monalty :  corn  was  bought  in  different  i)laces,  the  price  of  salt  was 
reduced,  the  tolls  and  taxes  were  lightened,  in  order  to  win  them 
over  and  conciliate  them  with  the  Republic,  so  that  they  might  not 
be  led  to  prefer  the  restoration  of  the  exiled  royal  family  to  a  war. 
The  property  of  the  deposed  king  had  been  previously  given  up  to 
the  plehs  to  be  plundered,  in  order,  as  Livy  expresses  it,  by  this 
robbery  of  the  royal  family  to  render  all  reconciliation  between  it 
and  i\iii plehs  impossible;-  while,  on  the  other  hand,  as  Livy  relates 
further  on,  when  the  news  of  Tarquin's  death  arrived  at  Rome,  the 
patricians  began  to  misuse  the  plebeian  order,  which  they  had 
hitherto  courted  by  all  the  means  in  their  power.^  That  these 
oppressions  of  the  pdehs  began  with  the  year  of  Tarquin's  death, 
A.u.c.  258,  is  indeed  scarcely  credible,  as  only  two  years  after- 
wards (2G0)  the  variance  between  the  two  orders  came  to  a  com- 
])lete  breach ;  they  must,  therefore,  have  begun  earlier.  (Why  ?) 
But  hence  the  true  character  of  that  revolution  appears  all  the  less 
doubtful,  which  did  not,  as  it  afterwards  became  the  mode  of 
talking  of  it,  produce  the  freedom  of  the  people,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, substituted  in  the  place  of  a  popular  monarchy,  or  at  all 
events  one  which  repressed  the  exclusive  pretensions  of  the  patri- 
cians, the  most  oppressive  despotism  of  the  great  families.  The 
kings  had  always  been   the  natural  patruns  of  the  2)lehs ;  their 


THE   KINGS   AND   THE   PLEBS. 


421 


J 


Il>id.  5. 


^  Lib.  ii.  9. 

^  Lib.  ii.  21  ;  cf.  Sail.  Hist.  up.  Aug.  C.  D.  ii.  18. 


I 


interests  were  easily  united  with  those  of  that  class,  as  the  latter 
could  not,  like  the  noble  families,  make  any  pretensions  to  share 
the  government  with  them;  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the 
jdehs  always  found  in  the  kings  a  help  and  protection  against  the 
oligarchs.  Between  the  plebs  and  the  great  families,  on  the 
contrary,  there  existed  an  abrupt  opposition  of  pretensions  and 
interests. 

"Dionysius  had  already  formed  this  judgment  of  the  position  of 
the  2)l^'^JS  towards  the  kings,  and  of  the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy. 
He  represents  the  spokesman  of  the  seceding  plebeians  as  thus 
addressing,  on  the  jNIons  Sacer,  the  deputies  from  tlie  Senate  : 
'  Rome  was  during  seven  generations  a  monarchy,  and  in  the  course 
of  all  these  reigns  the  plebeians  were  never  prejudiced  by  the 
kings  in  anything,  and  least  of  all  by  the  last.  By  all  manner  of 
favours  they  sought  to  befriend  the  plebeian  order,  and  to  set  it  at 
enmity  with  you.  Nevertheless,  when  the  last  king  introduced  a 
despotic  government,  by  Avhich,  however,  he  injured  not  the  people, 
but  you,  we  deserted  our  good  kings,  and  attached  our  interests  to 
yours.' ^  In  the  same  writer,  the  banished  Coriolanus  tells  the 
Volscians  :  *  The  Roman  constitution  was  originally  a  mixture  of 
monarchy  and  aristocracy  :  when  Tarquin  sought  to  turn  it  into  a 
despotism,  the  heads  of  the  noble  families  rose  up  against  him, 
drove  liim  from  the  city,  and  took  possession  of  the  po^ver  of  the 
state.'  "  It  is,  of  course,  understood  that  these  assertions  rest  not 
on  positive  tradition  ;  they  are  the  products  of  subjective  reflection  ; 
but  betray  a  correct  judgment  of  these  relations.  They  were,  per- 
haps, taken  from  the  experienced  Licinius  Macer,  who,  we  know, 
interwove  long  speeches  into  his  history. 

*'That  the  overthrow  of  the  Tarquins  was  not,  as  tradition 
represents  it,^  a  liberation  effected  by  the  Avhole  nation,  but  the 
victory  of  a  patrician  conspiracy,  a  work  of  patrician  reaction,  also 
appears  from  the  fact  that  the  leaders  of  the  conspiracy  were  all 
patricians,  and  indeed  of  the  highest  rank.  Brutus  was  Tribunus 
Celerum,  Lucretius  prefect  of  the  city. 

**Niebuhr,  indeed,  has  claimed  L.  Brutus  for  the  plehs,  and, 
accordingly,  sees  in  the  four  leaders  of  the  conspirac}^ — Lucretius, 
Valerius,  CoUatinus,  and  Brutus — the  representatives  of  the  threo 

1  Dionys.  vi.  76.  *  Tbid.  viii.  5. 

3  Trjulition  represents  it  as  what  it  really  wa.s  :  how  cl.:>e  could  Schweglev 
liaw  formed  his  opiuion  about  it  ? 


422 


IIISTOIIY    OF   THE    KINGS    OF    ROME. 


CHARACTER    OF   THE    REVOLUTION. 


44)0 
Jo 


patrician  stem-tribes  and  of  the  ^//^-is.^     But  this  assumption  has 
no  other  support  than  the  fact  that  tlie  Later  Junii,  who  traced 
their  descent  from  the  founder  of  the  Uepuhlic,  were  plebeians. 
This,  however,  proves  nothing  as  to  the  plebiscity  of  Junius  Ihutus, 
since — as  it  is  expressly  handed  down — the  two  families  of  the 
Junii  are  not  genealogically  connected  ;  for  the  posterity  of  Brutus 
was  extinguished  Avitli  his  two  sons,  w^hom  he  caused  to  be  executed 
when  mere  youths.     Dion  Cassius  says  this  expressly  (xliv.  12), 
and  declares  the  pretended  descent  of  ^L  Brutus  from  the  ancient 
L.  Brutus  to  be  an  invention.     So  also  Dionysius  (v.  18),  who 
appeals  to  the  testimony  of  the  best  Roman  historians,  as  well  as 
the  authorities  quoted  by  Plutarch  (Brutus  1).      Dionysius  accord- 
ingly (vi.  70)  distinguishes  the  plebeian  L.  Junius,  who  plays  a 
part  in  the  first  secession,  and  afterwards  becomes  tribune,  from  the 
family  of  the  founder  of  the  Kepublic,  and  remarks  that  the  former 
had  quite  arbitrarily  assumed  the  surname  of  Brutus.  Hence,  if  this 
last  Brutus  is  not  a  fictitious  personage,  there  was  in  the  earliest 
time  of  the  Republic  a  plebeian  line  of  the  Junii,  as  well  as  the 
j)atrician,  Avhich  died  out  with  the  consul  Brutus.      It  is  only  the 
])hilosopher  Posidonius  Avho  mentions  that  the  ancient  Brutus  left 
a  third  and  minor  son,  the  progenitor  of  the  race  of  the  Junii 
(Plut.  Brut.  1).     But  this  account  is  evidently  invented  in  their 
favour.     At  all  events,  the  Brutus  of  the  old  tradition  is  decidedly 
a  patrician  :  he  is  the  son  of  Tarquinia,  the  sister  of  the  last  king  ; 
his  wife  belongs  to  the   patrician  race  of  the  Yitellii  (Liv.  ii.  4  ; 
Suet.  Yit.  1).     Besides,  if  a  plebeian,  he  could  scarcely  have  become 
Tribunus  Celerum,  and  still  less  consul,  a  century  and  a  half  before 
the  Licinian  rogations.     It  would  at  least  have  been  strange  in  this 
case  that  the  plebeians  did  not  afterwards  aj)peal  to  this  precedent. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  the  patricians,  as  represented  by  Livy,  make 
it  an  objection  to  the  law  proposed  by  Canuleius,  that  since  the 
fall  of  the   kings   there   had  been  no  plebeian  consul ;   and  the 
spokesman  of  the  piths  admits  it  (Liv.  iv.  4). 

"There  i*;  another  circumstance  which  still  further  confirms  the 
conjecture  before  made  as  to  the  character  of  the  revolution  which 
overthrew  the  monarchy.  We  find,  for  instance,  that  the  banished 
royal  family  has  a  numerous  party,  which  is  implicated  in  its  fall, 
and  follows  it  into  banishment.     In  the  battle  of  Lake  llegillus, 

1  This  is  one  of  those  mimerous  crochets,  foniidod  on  nothing  at  all  hut 
iiuagiiiatiou  and  conjecture,  which  di.stigure  the  history  of  Niehuhr. 


these  exiles  form  a  peculiar  cohort;^  and  even  in  the  year  2G2, 
when  the  Romans  send  ambassadors  to  buy  corn  in  Lower  Italy, 
we  find  among  the  Volsci  and  in  Cumai  a  great  number  of  Roman 
refugees,  who  bitterly  oppose  these  ambassadors,  and  among  the 
Yolsci  excite  the  people,  at  Cuma3  the  tyrant  Aristodemus,  against 
them.-  The  exiles  who  in  the  year  294  seize  the  Capitol,  under 
the  leadership  of  Herdonius,  were  perhaps  descendants  of  these 
])anished  partisans  of  the  Tarquins.  AYe  further  find  that  the 
overthrown  dynasty  has  still  a  party  in  Rome  itself.  Livy,  at 
least,  relates  that  at  the  breaking  out  of  the  Latin  War  a  Dictator 
was  chosen  because  the  consuls  of  that  year  were  regarded  with 
some  suspicion  as  belonging  to  the  Tarquinian  party.=^  From  all 
these  indications  it  follows  that  the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy 
\lid  not  only  concern  the  expulsion  of  a  fiagitious  tyrant,  hated 
alike  by  the  patricians  and  the  people,  but  that  tlie  revolution  was 
the  result  of  more  general  causes.  The  same  conclusion  must  be 
drawn  from  the  circumstance  that  no  other  king  is  chosen  in  place 
of  the  banished  Tarquin  ;  for  the  revolution  concerns,  consequently, 
not  only  the  person  of  Tarquin,  but  the  monarchy  as  a  political 
principle.  And  this  brings  us  back  to  the  conjecture  before  pro- 
pounded, that  the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy  was  the  work  of  the 
aristocratic  families." 

On  the  same  subject  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  remarks  :  ^  "  The  narrative 
of  the  reign  of  Tarquinius  Superbus  so  far  difi'ers  from  that  of  the 
former  kings  that  there  is  a  much  closer  agreement  between  Livy 
and  Dionysius,  and  more  appearance  of  a  fixed  version  of  the 
events  in  the  difi"erent  writers  from  which  they  drew  their  accounts. 
But  there  is  nothing  which  leads  to  the  inference  that  the  materials 
from  which  the  narrative  is  constructed  w^ere  derived  from  con- 
temporary registration,  or  were  written  down  from  fresh  and 
authenticated  oral  traditions,  like  the  account  of  the  Pisistratidse 
in  Thucydides.  The  interval  which  separated  the  historian  Fabius 
from  this  reign  is  as  great  as  that  which  separated  Hermippus  or 
I'hylarchus  from  the  time  of  the  Pisistratidse.  The  inscription 
which  recorded  the  treaty  between  Rome  and  Gabii,  still  extant 
in  the  time  of  Dionysius,  was  doubtless  ancient ;  but  whether  it 
named  Tarquin,  or  contained  within  itself  any  indication  of  its 
date,  is  uncertain." 


1  liv.  ii.  ID,  scqq.  ;  Dionys.  vi.  5. 
•*  Liv.  ii.  18,  21. 


2  Dionys.  vii.  2. 

4  Cie.li1.il it y,  k^.  xi.  §  38. 


Mi«iiBWiiMilit)tiiiiiiiiliifi#iaiiM>faMy^ 


424 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


Of  tlie  treaty  with  Gabii  we  have  already  spoken.  To  the  objec- 
tion about  contemj^orary  registration  it  may  be  answered,  as  we 
have  before  suggested,  that  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  a 
nation  arrived  at  that  cultivation,  splendour,  and  commercial  activity 
which  characterised  Konie  at  the  time  of  the  last  Tarquin,  should 
have  been  without  all  annals  or  records ;  that  indubitable  traces  of 
record  appear  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Tullus  Ilostilius,  which, 
therefore,  a  fortiori^  must  have  existed  under  the  subsequent 
kings ;  and  that,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  Introduction,  there  is 
historical  evidence  of  its  existence.  But  a  great  part  of  the  records 
perished  in  the  Gallic  conflagration ;  and  hence  the  early  history 
has  necessarily  a  fragmentary  character,  which  has  aiforded  the 
sceptical  critics  a  handle  to  depreciate  it.  And  their  arguments 
have  been  aided  by  the  circumstance  that  some  of  the  later  his- 
torians, and  particularly  Dionysius,  have  endeavoured  to  breach 
over  these  chasms  by  pragmatical  inventions  of  their  own  \  and 
also,  as  the  narrative  was  necessarily  bare  and  dry,  to  embellish  it 
by  working  up  dramatically  the  more  prominent  events,  as  the 
death  of  Servius  Tullius,  the  capture  of  Gabii,  the  mission  to 
Delphi,  the  rape  of  Lucretia,  and  other  incidents  of  the  like  kind. 
But,  nevertheless,  under  all  these  events  we  are  of  opinion  that 
there  is  a  solid  foundation  of  truth. 

*'  AVith  respect  to  the  internal  evidence,"  continues  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis,  "  we  may  first  remark  that  the  chronology  is  not  consistent 
with  itself.  The  life  of  Tarquinius  Superbus,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  is  extended  to  an  impossible  length,  if  we  suppose  him  to 
have  been  the  son  of  Tarquinius  Priscus,  and  to  have  died  at 
Cumse  in  49G  b.c.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Collatinus  :  and 
Brutus,  who  is  described  as  a  boy  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of 
Tarquinius  Superbus,  and  a  young  man  at  its  termination,  appears 
immediately  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings  with  two  grown-up 
sons." 

We  have  before  examined  these  chronological  objections  respect- 
ing the  Tarquins,  and  shall  only  remark  here,  that  Sir  G.  C.  Lew^is, 
without  inquiring  for  himself,  servilely  follows  Schwegler,  who,  in 
the  case  of  Brutus  especially,  has  grossly  misinterpreted  the  plainest 
words  of  Dionysius  and  Livy.     Thus,  that  writer  says  \^  '* Brutus, 

^  B.  i.  S.  50.  In  order  to  justify  our  chcarge  against  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  of 
servilely  following  Schwegler,  wc  may  remark  that  he  adopts  Schwcgler's 
mistjuotation  of  the  chapter  referred  to  in  Livy  ;  viz.  i.  46,  instead  of  i.  h^. 


OBJECTIONS   AS   TO   THE   AGE    OF   BRUTUS. 


425 


who  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Tarquinius  Superbus  appears 
as  a  boy  under  age  {immundiger  Knahe),  and  at  the  end  of  it  as  a 
young  man  of  the  same  age  as  the  king's  sons,  is  said  immediately 
after  the  expulsion  of  Tanpiin  to  have  grown-up  sons."  The 
authorities  quoted  for  these  assertions  are,  Dionysius  iv.  (jS,  69, 
and  Livy  i.  bQ.  The  w^ords  of  Dionysius  in  ch.  68  are  :  'S^eos  Cjv 
6  Bpuro?  €TL,  'being  still  young.'"  In  ch.  60  the  words  roTs 
fi€ipaKioL<s  and  ol  vEavlo-KOL  refer  exclusively  to  Tarquin's  sons,  and 
cannot  by  any  method  of  construction  be  made  to  include  Brutus. 
But,  even  if  they  did,  they  would  not  prove  what  Schwegler  wishes 
to  prove  about  the  age  of  Brutus  ;  for  among  the  Eomans  a  man 
wasjiivenis  till  the  age  of  forty-five,  as  w^e  see  from  the  jun lores  up 
to  that  age  enrolled  in  the  Servian  census.  And,  therefore,  when 
Livy  in  the  chapter  referred  to  calls  Brutus  juvenis,  that  would 
not  prevent  him  from  having  been  about  forty  at  the  time  of  the 
journey  to  Delphi.  And  this  journey  may  have  taken  place  three 
or  four  years  before  the  expulsion  of  Tarquin.  For,  first,  we  may 
suppose  that  the  journey  itself,  as  travelling  was  in  those  days, 
might  occupy  the  better  part  of  a  year.  Then,  when  the  travellers 
return,  war  against  the  Eutuli  is  only  preparing.  Kext  it  is 
attempted  to  take  Ardea  by  assault,  which  fails;  and  then  a 
blockade  is  established,  the  duration  of  which  cannot  be  told.  So 
that  Brutus  may  very  well  have  been  forty -three  or  forty-four  when 
he  overthrew  Tarquin,  and  have  had  sons  of  eighteen  or  twenty. 
Li^'y  calls  them  adolescentes,  and  adolescentia  began  at  the  age  of 
fifteen. 

The  objections  wdiich  follow  the  preceding,  respecting  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Latin  deputies,  the  public  works  of  Tarquin,  and  the 
reduction  of  Gabii,  we  have  already  examined.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
then  continues  :  ''  The  prodigy  of  the  eagles  building  on  a  palm 
tree,  and  their  expulsion  by  a  flock  of  vultures,  must  be  set  down 
as  fiction ;  but  the  story  of  Lucretia,  though  it  has  a  romantic  cast, 
might  be  substantially  true  ;  nor  would  there  be  any  good  reason 
for  questioning  its  reality,  if  it  came  to  us  authenticated  by  fair 
contemporary  evidence.  The  true  story  of  the  suicide  of  Arria, 
who,  when  she  had  stabbed  herself,  gave  the  dagger  to  her  husband 
with  the  celebrated  words,  Pcete,  non  dolet^  is  not  more  improbable 
than  the  suicide  of  Lucretia ;  though  the  description  of  Brutus 

So  that  he  could  not  have  taken  the  trouble  to  refer  to  the  authorities  to  sec 
if  Schweglcr'satla.k  wasjiist.  i  Plin.  Epp.  iii.  16. 


426 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


brandishing  the  bloody  dagger,  and  holding  it  in  his  hand  while 
he  swears  vengeance  against  the  Tarquins,  savours  of  theatrical 
eliect." 

The  prodigy  of  the  eagles  is  recorded  only  by  Dionysius  ^  and 
his  follower  Zonaras.  We  do  not,  however,  reject  it  on  that 
account.  Dionysius  may  probably  have  taken  it  from  good  autho- 
rity, if  not  directly  from  the  ancient  Annals ;  and  Livy  may 
have  omitted  it  merely  for  the  sake  of  brevity.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's 
ground  for  asserting  that  it  is  a  fiction  is,  that  the  palm-tree  does 
not  grow^  at  Rome, — an  assertion  which  he  makes  on  the  authority 
of  a  certain  Dr.  Eothman,-  who,  in  his  Observations  on  the 
Climate  of  Italy,  p.  6,  remarks  "  that  Terracina  is  now  the 
northern  limit  of  the  date  palm  in  Italy,  with  the  exception  of  a 
convent  garden  at  Home  and  a  small  tract  of  coast  between  ^<'ice 
and  Genoa."  On  this  we  have  observed  in  another  work  :  '^  "  The 
testimony  of  Dr.  Eothman  is  thus  preferred  to  that  of  Dionysiu?, 
who  spent  a  great  part  of  his  life  at  liome,  and  must  have  been  a 
competent  judge  of  such  a  fact.  The  palm  excepted  by  Dr.  Eoth- 
man is  probably  the  fine  one  in  the  garden  of  the  Convent  of  Sta. 
Francisca,  near  S.  Pietro  in  Vincoli,  which  must  have  been  seen 
and  admired  by  most  visitors  of  Eome.  But  if  such  a  tree  can 
grow  there  in  the  open  air,  why  should  not  others  ]  In  fact  those 
who  are  acquainted  with  Home  know  that  it  possesses  many  palm- 
trees  besides  this ;  as  those  in  the  gardens  of  the  Yilla  Colonna, 
visible  from  the  Via  della  Pilotta,  and  others  in  other  places." 
Since  this  was  written,  another  visit  to  Itome  has  discovered  to 
the  author  a  magnificent  palm,  transplanted  in  18G5  to  the  Pincian 
Hill,  at  the  spot  where  the  band  plays,  which,  from  its  conspicuous 
position,  cannot  fail  to  have  been  noticed  by  the  most  unobservant 
traveller. 

That  the  story  of  Lucretia's  suicide  should  need  to  be  supported 
by  that  of  Arria,  who  had  hardly  so  good  a  reason  to  slay  herself, 
seems  a  strange  idea  of  historical  criticism.  But,  in  fact,  female 
suicides  for  much  more  trivial  reasons  occur  every  day.  Hence  it 
would  appear  that  a  story  is  not  to  believed  unless  it  has  a  parallel, 
though  sometimes  it  is  rejected  because  it  has  one ;  and  further, 
that  even  "  a  true  story  "  may  be  "  improbable. '^  The  objection  to 
Brutus   brandishing  the   dagger  savours   of  the  very   essence  of 

1  Lib.  iv.  63.  ^  gg^  ^   515^  „yte  1.27. 

^  Hist,  of  the  City  of  Koine,  ]».  xlvii. 


I 


HISTORICAL    DISCREPANCIES    EXAMINED. 


427 


liyporcriticism.    A  history  written  on  the  principles  which  it  implies 
would  rcijuire  even  the  most  trivial  act  to  be  certified  on  affidavit. 

The  remaining  objections  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  to  the  narrative  of 
the  catastrophe  that  produced  the  fall  of  the  Poman  kingdom  are 
not  of  a  nature  to  require  any  lengthenened  examination.     He  ad- 
mits^ the  possibility  *'  that  some  fragments  of  true  and  authentic 
tradition  may  be  preserved  in  the  narrative  w^hich  has  come  down 
to  us  ;  but  we  have  no  means  of  distinguishing  them  :  we  have  no 
test  by  wdiich  we  can  separate  the  dross  from  the  pure  ore."     But 
surely  'Hhe  pure  ore"  must  be  the  grand  outlines  of  the  story,  in 
which  all  the  historians  are  agreed — the  outrage  on  Lucretia  by  one 
of  Tarquin's  sons,  her  suicide,  the  conspiracy  of  her  husband,  her 
father,  and  their  friends  to  avenge  her,  and  the  consequent  deposi- 
tion and  banishment  of  Tarquin.    In  comparison  of  these,  the  little 
details  of  the  story  are  indeed  "dross,"  and  hardly  deserve  the 
epithet  of  ''material  circumstances"   given  to  tliem  by  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis.     "  The  dispute  of  the  young  men  about  their  wives,"  ob- 
serves that  writer,-  "  and  their  nocturnal  ride  to  Rome  and  CoUatia, 
which  is  the  foundation  of  the  attempt  of  Sextus  in  Livy,  is  alto- 
gether wanting  in  Dionysius.     In  the  latter  Rome  is  the  place  of 
Lucretia's  suicide ;  in  the  former  it  is  Collatia.     ^Nlost  of  the  ac- 
counts represent  Tar([uinius  Superbus  as  having  three  sons,  Sextus, 
Titus,  and  Aruns ;  but  Livy  and  Ovid  make  Sextus,  the  ravisher 
of  Lucretia,  the  youngest,  while  Dionysius  says  that  he  was  the 
eldest  of  the  three.     Other  Avriters  again  speak  of  Aruns  as  having 
ravished  Lucretia.  .  .  .  Livy  moreover  represents  the  king  and  his 
family  as  escaping  to  Cxtc,  Avitli  the  exception  of  Sextus,  who  re- 
pairs to  his  kingdom  of  Gabii,  where  he  is  put  to  death.     Diony- 
sius, on  the  other  hand,  says  that  Tarquin  first  took  refuge  in  Gabii, 
and  afterwards  removed  to  Caere." 

It  is  very  immaterial  how  Sextus's  visit  to  Collatia  was  occasioned, 
or  whether  Lucretia  slew  herself  there  or  at  Rome  ;  but  Livy,  in  his 
whole  narrative,  so  far  as  Lucretia  is  concerned,  appears  to  have 
used  better  sources  than  Dionysius,  perhaps  private  memoirs.  That 
the  Tarc^uin  who  outraged  Lucretia  was  named  Sextus,  all  the  best 
authorities  are  agreed ;  and  their  dillerence  as  to  whether  he  was 
the  eldest  or  the  youngest  of  the  three  sons  is  of  small  importance 
to  the  story.  The  only  waiters  who  say  that  Aruns  Avas  the 
ravisher  are   Florus   and  Servius,  whose  testimony  cannot  be  set 

1  Vol.  i.  p.  r.-jo.  2  P.  52L 


423 


HISTOKY   OF   THE   KIXGS   OF   ROME. 


against  that  of  Livy,  Dionysius,  Diodorus,  Dion  Cassius,  Victor,  and 
Zonaras.  To  inquire  whether  Tarquin  went  to  Gabii  before  pro- 
ceeding to  Caere — which  he  probably  did,  as  Gabii  was  nearer,  and 
belonged  to  his  son — is  really  beneath  the  dignity  either  of  a  critic 
or  an  historian.  What  a  singular  idea  must  the  critic  have  formed 
of  the  nature  of  such  early  history,  and  of  the  information  which 
may  fairly  be  expected  from  it,  to  make  such  minute  circumstances 
an  argument  against  its  credibility  ! 

Schwegler  concludes  the  first  volume  of  his  history  with  the 
following  review  of  the  regal  period  :  ^  "  If,  having  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  regal  period,  we  cast  upon  it  a  retrospective 
glance,  it  would  appear  to  have  exercised  the  most  important  and 
decisive  influence  on  the  form  and  essence  of  the  Eoman  state, 
which  indeed  it  may  be  said  to  have  produced.  It  converted  into 
a  united  state  the  loose  social  bond  of  the  most  ancient  time,  when 
there  was  nothing  but  families  and  races,-  and  reduced  to  practice 
the  idea  of  a  supreme  power  in  the  state,  that  principle  of  subordi- 
nation which  was  still  foreign  to  a  state  composed  of  races.  The 
Eoman  idea  of  the  magistracy,  to  which  Home  so  pre-eminently 
owed  her  greatness  and  power,  was  a  legacy  of  the  monarchy.  The 
later  Eonians  have  rightly  regarded  the  epoch  of  their  kingly 
government  as  a  school  of  discipline  and  political  education  which 
was  necessary  to  perfect  the  Eoman  people,  and  have  always  pre- 
served the  memory  of  their  kings  with  reverential  piety. 

*'  The  number  of  seven  Eoman  kings  cannot  be  accepted  as 
historical,  as  the  first  two  of  them  are  decidedly  fiibulous.  That 
number  contains  in  itself  something  mythical,  since  it  appears  as  a 
sacred  number  among  the  Romans  in  other  things  ;  as  the  Septimon- 
tium,  or  seven  hills.  At  the  same  time  the  number  of  seven  kings 
presents  the  seven  principal  circumstances  or  fundamental  facts  of 
the  constitutional  history  before  the  republican  times.  The  first 
three  kings  represent  the  three  ancient  stem-races  :  Ancus  Marcius 
is  the  founder  of  the  x^lehs;  Tarquinius  Priscus  founds  the  Gentes 
Minore8;  Servius Tullius  the  tribes  and  centuries;  and,  lastly,  with 

1  Buchxviii.  §  18  ff. 

*  This  remark  appears  to  relate  more  to  the  Sabine  part  of  the  population 
than  the  Roman.  See  Sclnvegler,  B.  i.  S.  244.  According  to  our  view,  which 
we  believe  to  be  conformable  to  tradition,  Romulus  at  once  formed  his  state, 
and  created  the  races  (or  (jcntcs)  by  a  political  act,  instead  of  uniting  races 
or  clans  that  already  existed.  And  we  may  remark  that  even  the  Sabiucs  had 
A  king  when  they  settled  at  Rome. 


VIEWS   OF   THE   REGAL   PERIOD. 


429 


the  name  of  the  younger  Tarquin  is  connected  the  fall  of  the 
monarchy.  Such  a  coincidence,  however,  is,  as  a  recent  inquirer 
observes,^  foreign  to  actual  and  common  life,  in  which  important 
matters  and  unimportant  ones  follow  one  another  in  variegated  con- 
fusion ;  but  it  agrees  well  enough  with  the  character  of  legend, 
vvdiich  loves  to  assign  definite  names  to  those  connected  with 
definite  circumstances  and  historical  turning-points." 

Kemarks  like  these  do  not  require  any  serious  answer.  The 
absurdities  here  ascribed  to  legend,  or  tradition,  are  only  the 
farfetched  inventions  of  German  historians  and  critics  ;  in  short, 
criticism  run  wild,  or,  what  is  often  the  same  thing,  Teutonized. 
There  are  no  grounds  for  connecting  the  first  three  kings  with  the 
three  stem-tribes,  or  Ancus  Marcius  with  W\Q2)l^hs.  That  Tarquinius 
Priscus  created  the  Gentes  Minores,  in  the  sense  here  meant  of  new 
tribes,  is  only  a  German  invention ;  and  as  to  the  last  Tarquin, 
he,  as  Schwegler  shows,  created  nothing,  yet  is  to  be  ranked  among 
the  other  six  (reputed)  founders  because — he  was  overthrown  ! 
A  wr.ter  who  can  publish  these  platitudes  inspires  us  with  grave 
doubts  of  his  critical  judgment. 

In  the  last  section  Schwegler  discusses  over  again  the  chronology 
of  the  regal  period,  which  we  have  examined  in  the  Introductory 
Dissertation,  and  need  not  again  enter  upon. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  sums  up  as  follows  his  view  of  the  regal  period  :  ^ 
"  Having  completed  our  detailed  examination  of  the  historical  evi- 
dence of  the  regal  period,  we  may  now  briefly  sum  up  the  con- 
clusions to  which  it  appears  to  point.  It  may  then  be  stated,  as 
the  result  of  this  inquiry,  that  the  narrative  of  Eoman  affairs,  from 
the  foundation  of  the  city  to  the  expulsion  of  the  Tarquins,  is 
formed  out  of  the  traditionary  materials.  At  what  time  the  oral 
traditions  were  reduced  into  writing,  and  how  much  of  the  existing 
narrative  was  the  arbitrary  supj^lement  of  the  historians  who  first 
framed  the  account  which  has  descended  to  us,  it  is  now  impossible 
to  ascertain." 

So  far,  it  would  seem  that  the  history  was  entirely  constructed 
from  oral  tradition.  But  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  immediately  proceeds  to 
give  us  something  better. 

"  The  most  ancient  materials  for  Eoman  history  were  doubtless 
(as  indeed  we  may  infer  from  Dionysius)  unconnected  stories, 
notes  of  legal  usages  and  of  constitutional  forms,  and  other  entries 

'  Peter,  Ocs.-h.  Rilm.  i.  60.  ?  Credibility,  &c.  vol.  i.  p.  526. 


430 


HISTORY    OF   THE    KINGS    OF   ROME. 


in  the  Pontifical  books.  These  were  the  germs  of  Eoman  liistory  ; 
out  of  these  fmgments  Fabiiis  and  liis  successors  constructed  the 
primitive  annals  of  their  country.  The  remains  of  leges  m//a^  (of 
which  a  iew  citations  occur  in  ancient  writers,  and  of  which  a 
collection  is  even  said  to  liave  existed  in  later  times)  are  nothing 
more  than  ancient  records  of  this  sort." 

We  learn  from  this  that  there  were  at  all  events  «'  fragments"  of 
records  which  Fabius  and  tlie  other  annalists  used  in  composing 
their  works.  The  natural  interpretation  of  the  first  sentence  is, 
that  there  were  also  "unconnected  stories"  in  the  Pontifical  books. 
We  do  not  feel  quite  sure  whether  this  was  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's 
meaning;  but  we  have  alrea^ly  endeavoured  to  show^  that  the 
Pontifices  were  the  historiographers  of  the  city  ;  and  in  that  case 
the  stories  may  have  had  more  connexion  than  the  critic  is  willinfy 
to  allow.  But  he  immediately  proceeds  to  depreciate  the  value  of 
his  concession,  as  follows  : 

"  It  was  easy  for  a  pontifical  scribe,  who  entered  a  rule  of  con- 
suetudinary law  in  his  register,  to  dignify  it  with  the  name  of  a 
lex  regia,  and  to  attribute  it  to  Xuma,  Servius,  or  one  of  the  other 
kings." 

We,  on  the  contrary,  afiirm  that  it  is  "  easy  "  to  make  such  an 
assertion,  but  exceedingly  difficult  to  render  it  credible.  What ! 
are  we  to  believe  that  the  Poman  law  was  defiled  and  poisoned  at 
its  very  source  1  That  the  Pontifices,  whose  sacred  duty  it  was  to 
register  the  laws,  were  no  better  than  forgers  and  impostors,  who, 
without  any  conceivable  motive — for  what  could  have  been  gained 
by  it  ?— but  merely  from  caprice  and  levity,  gave  false  titles,  and 
consequently  a  false  importance,  to  these  laws^  AVas  there  no 
check  upon  them, — no  pul)lic  punishment,  no  public  shame?  In 
what  other  nation  can  it  be  sui)posed  that  this  most  sacred  of  all 
trusts  could  be  thus  wantonly  and  causelessly  abused  ?  Such  an 
accusation  shows  a  critic  driven  to  his  last  straits,  and  betrays  a 
scepticism  that  not  even  the  best  evidence  can  satisfy. 

"The  same  origin,"  continues  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  "must  be  assigned" 
(that  is,  we  presume,  from  the  Pontifical  books)  "  to  the  curious 
legal  forms— such  as  the  inauguration  of  the  kings,  the  making  of 
treaties,  the  appointment  of  capital  duumvirs,  the  declaration  of 
war,  and  the  surrender  of  a  city — which  are  preserved  in  the  first 
book  of  Livy.    Private  documents,  or  papers,  of  Xuma  and  Servius 

'  Srp  tho  In  trod  11  ft  ion. 


OBJECTIONS    OF    SIR    O.    C.    LEWIS. 


4.31 


nre  likewise  mentioned  by  the  same  historian  ;  but  he  does  not  say 
that  they  were  preserved." 

Here  then  we  have  authentic  documents  for  the  regal  period, 
and  Sir  Cr.  C.  Lewis  does  not  even  insinuate  that  they  Avere  forged. 
Though  Livy  does  not  expressly  say  that  the  papers  of  Xuma  and 
Servius  were  preserved  to  his  time,  there  is  nothing  to  show  that 
they  were  not ;  and  the  passage  of  Cicero's  Oration  for  Pabirius 
(<*.  5)  which  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  quotes  in  a  note  affords  a  strong 
presumption  that  they  might  have  been  preserved  :  "  Cum  iste 
omnes  et  suppliciorum  et  verborum  acerbitates  non  ex  memoria 
vestra  ac  patrum  vestrorum,  sed  ex  annalium  monumentis  at(pie  ex 
regum  commentariis,  conquisierit;"  where  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  observes, 
"the  words  rrgum  commentarii  mean  documents  of  the  regal 
period."  Yet  that  writer  observes  in  the  same  note  that  the 
Commentarii  of  Servius  Tullius  were  "  doubtless  a  fiction,  founded 
upon  his  reputation  as  a  popular  king."  Put  at  all  events,  whether 
these  Commentaries  were  preserved  or  not  to  the  time  of  Livy,  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  they  were  made ;  and  therefore  there  were 
records  in  the  times  of  the  kings. 

"  There  is  no  trace,"  continues  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  "of  any  authentic 
chronology  of  the  regal  period  ;  the  number  of  years  assigned  to 
each  reign  is  large,  although  the  kings  are  elective ;  most  of  them 
die  a  violent  death,  and  the  last  king  is  dethroned.  Nevertheless 
a  detailed  chronology  for  this  period  seems  to  have  been  fabricated 
by  the  Poman  antiquaries ;  the  extant  Triumphal  Fasti  record  the 
triumphs  of  the  kings  ;  and  Dionysius^  quotes  the  Annals  for  the 
date  of  the  death  of  Aruns  Tarquinius  in  the  reign  of  Servius." 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  begins  this  paragraph  by  remarking  that  there 
is  no  authentic  chrnology  of  the  regal  period,  and  ends  it  by 
saying  that  Dionysius  quotes  the  annals  for  the  date  of  the  death 
of  Aruns  Tari^uinius.  On  these  annals  he  observes  in  another 
place  :  -  "  The  annals  to  which  Dionysius  alludes  are  called  by 
him  ii'Lavffiai  uruypacfmi.  They  must  liave  been  some  chrono- 
logical work,  in  which  the  events  of  the  regal  period  were  entered 
according  to  years."  There  was,  therefore,  by  liis  own  admission,  a 
chronology  of  the  regal  period,  though  the  question  may  remain 
whether  it  was  an  authentic  one.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
work  to  which  Dionysius  alludes  was  the  Annates  Maximi,  the 
preservation   of   which,  as  we   have   shown   in  the  Introductory 

'    EiK  iv.  30.  •-•  Vol.  i.  p.  r>or>.  note  95. 


432 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS   OF   ROME. 


Dissertation,  is  attested  by  the  best  evidence.  The  handing  down 
of  a  work  full  of  dates  jcoold  not  have  been  accomplished  by  oral 
tradition ;  nor  is  this  the  form  which  i)opular  invention  takes  in 
matters  of  early  history.  The  circumstances  attending  the  birth 
and  the  murder  of  Servius  Tullius,  of  the  capture  of  Gabii,  of  the 
idiocy  of  Brutus,  may  possibly  be  exaggerated  and  embellished, 
and  therefore  in  some  degree  invented;  but  the  foncy  which 
delights  in  such  inventions  cares  little  or  nothing  for  a  dry  detail 
of  dates.  We  must  choose,  then,  between  two  conclusions  :  either 
this  chronological  work  is  a  deliberate  literary  forgery  perpetrated 
by  the  first  annalists  or  their  successors,  yet  not  forming  part  of 
their  works — since  Dionysius  refers  to  it  as  a  separate  and  sub- 
stantive one — or  it  is  a  genuine  document  of  the  regal  period. 
Which  is  the  more  probable  of  these  alternatives  we  have  already 
examined  in  the  Introduction,  as  well  as  the  objection  about  the 
length  of  the  kings'  reigns. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  then  proceeds  :  "  At  what  time  the  oral  tra- 
ditions relating  to  the  period  of  the  kings  began  to  be  reduced  into 
writing  we  are  unable  to  determine.  The  records  of  them  which 
were  made  before  the  burning  of  Eome,  390  b.c.,  were  d(jubtless 
rare  and  meagre  in  the  extreme ;  and  such  as  there  were  at  this 
time  chiefly  perished  in  the  conflagration  and  ruin  of  the  city.  It 
was  probably  not  till  after  this  period — that  is  to  say,  about  120 
years  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings,  and  above  350  years  after 
the  era  assigned  for  the  foundation  of  the  city — that  these  oral 
reports,  these  hearsay  stories  of  many  generations,  began  to  be 
entered  in  the  registers  of  the  Pontifices.  Even  when  the  regis- 
tration began,  it  was  doubtless  principally  employed  about  contem- 
porary events ;  it  had  an  annalistic  character,  and  the  history  of 
the  primitive  time  was  not  written  till  a  later  period." 

These  assertions  about  the  time  when  oral  tradition  began  to  be 
converted  into  written  history  are  founded  on  nothing  at  all.  Xot 
a  single  testimony  is  brought  forward  in  support  of  them,  nothing 
but  passages  from  Dr.  Arnold  and  Schwegler.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
has  here  adopted  the  German  practice  of  quoting  a  modern 
authority  as  equivalent  to  an  ancient  one  ;  but  his  assertions  still 
remain  nothing  more  than  conjectures.  There  is  in  the  ancient 
writers  both  positive  and  deductive  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
record  in  the   regal  period.      The  burthen  of   proof  lies  on  the 


OBJECTIONS   OF   SIR   (i.   C.    LEWIS. 


433 


attacking  party  to  show   that  this  did  not  and  could  not  have 
existed ;  wliich,  we  submit,  has  not  been  done. 

Why  should  it  be  more  probable  that  registration  began  120 
years  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings  than  during  their  time'^ 
We  are  convinced,  and  have  endeavoured  to  show,  that  the  Eomans 
during  that  period  had  rather  retrograded  than  advanced  in  civili- 
zation. That  after  the  Gallic  fire  records  had  more  chance  of 
being  preserved  we  admit.  The  misfortune  of  the  early  history  is 
that  the  records  were  in  great  part  destroyed,  and  consequently 
rare ;  not  that  there  were  none,  or  that  they  were  unauthentic.  The 
most  careless  reader  may  convince  himself  of  this  fact  by  merely 
oi)ening  Livy,  where  lie  will  find  more  than  three  centuries  and  a 
half,  according  to  the  usual  chronology,  recorded  in  the  first  five 
books  of  the  first  decade,  while  the"  last  five  books  comprise  only  a 
period  of  less  than  a  century  ;  and  the  second  decade  embraced 
about  seventy-five  years. 

In  the    concluding  paragraph   of   this  39th  section,   which   is 
occupied  with  an  inquiry  into  the  general  results  with  respect  to 
the  historical  evidence  for  the  regal  period.   Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  says 
little   that   requires   any   formal   examination.      He   difi'ers   from 
Kiebuhr's  opinion  that   the   reigns  of  Komulus   and   Numa   are 
purely  fabulous  and  poetical,  and  that  those  of  the  last  five  belong 
to  the  niythico-historical  period,  in  which  there  is  a  narrative  resting' 
on  an  historical  basis,  and  most  of  the  persons  mentioned  are  real. 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  cannot  discover  any  ground  for  this  distinction, 
and  thinks  that  the  history  of  the  entire  regal  period  is  tolerably 
uniform  in  its  character.     We  also  are  inclined  to  dissent  from 
Niebuhr's  view,  but  not  quite  on  the  same  grounds  ;  and  indeed  it  is 
dilficult  to  see  what  Niebuhr's  view  exactly  was  :  for  if,  as  he  says, 
'*  the  names  of  the  kings  are  purely  fictitious  ;  no  man  can  tell 
liow  long  the  Koman  kings  reigned,  as  we  do  not  know  how  many 
there  were,'"^  it   is   difficult  to   see  how  any  of  the  reigns   can 
deserve  the  epithet  even  of  mythico-historical,  or  can  be  considered 
to  rest  on  any  historical  ground.    We  difl^er  from  Niebuhr's  opinion 
that  the  first  two  kings  were  fabulous  personages ;  but  we  agree 
Avith  him  in  thinking  that  a  line  may  be  drawn  between  their 
reigns  and  those  of  the  subsequent  kings ;  because  the  events  of 
the  first  two  reigns  rest  only  on  tradition,  though  the  main  facts 
of  them  were  shortly  afterwards  recorded,  while  with  the  reign  of 

^  Lt'ct.  vol.  i.  p.  41. 
F  F 


4:u 


IIIJ^TORY    OF   THE    KINGS    OF    l^OMK. 


f 


SIH    G.    C.    LEWIS  S    OiUEGTIOXS. 


43 


DO 


Tullus  Hostilius,  the  Pontifices  liaving  been  established  by  Xuma, 
contemporary  record  had  begun.  AVe  agree  with  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's 
remark,  in  contravention  of  Niebuhr,  *'  that  the  names  of  the  kings 
after  Romuhis  are  real  is  highly  probable,"  though  we  would 
include  also  that  of  li omul  us  ;  for  it  is  hardly  possible  that  the 
name  of  the  person  who  founded  Rome  at  a  comparatively  late 
epoch,  and  when  all  the  surrounding  country  was  thickly  peopled 
and  tolerably  civilized,  should  have  been  unknown  or  forgotten. 
Eesides,  as  we  have  seen,  his  name  was  commemorated  by  his 
statue  on  the  Capitol,  erected  only  about  two  centuries  after  his 
time.  We  also  agi-ee  with  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  in  thinking  that  "  the 
circumstance  that  the  two  King  Taripiins  were  both  named  Lucius, 
and  that  it  was  necessary  to  distinguish  them  by  the  epithets  of 
Priscus  and  Superbus,  raises  a  presumption  that  the  names  were 
real."  To  which  we  will  add  that  Xuma's  name  must  have  been 
inseparably  connected  with  the  sacerdotal  system  of  the  Eomans, 
that  of  Tullus  Hostilius  with  the  Guria  Hostilia,  and  that  of 
Servius  with  the  wall  and  ogger^  and  with  the  census.  And  in 
fact  the  names  of  all  the  kings  must  have  been  connected  with 
some  great  public  monument  or  institution. 

In  the  40th  section  of  his  11th  chapter,  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
reviews  the  nature  of  the  regal  government,  and  the  difficulty  of 
reconciling  the  history  with  the  accounts  of  it.  On  this  subject 
he  remarks  :  ^ 

.*'  It  is  expressly  stated  that  the  constitutional  powers  of  the 
Roman  king  were  very  limited,  and  that  no  measure  of  legislation, 
no  decision  of  war  or  peace,  and  not  even  any  important  adminis- 
trative or  judicial  act,  could  take  place  without  the  consent  of  the 
Senate  and  people.     Tlie  constitution  of  Servius,  with  its  elaborate 
system  of  voting,  implies  a  complete  development  of  the  popular 
power ;  and  the  system  which  it  superseded  is  described  as  having 
been  still  more  democratic.     Yet  the  historv  is  exclusivelv  con- 
cerned  with  the  king's  exploits ;    not  even  in  the  annals  of  an 
Oriental  state  could  he  occupy  a  m.ore  exclusive  attention  :  there  is 
no  independent  action  in  the  Senate  or  the  people ;  the  Romans 
are  undistinguished  units,  mere  passive  and  unnamed  instruments 
in  the  king's  hands.     If  the  first  six  kings  had  been  as  absolute 
and  uncontrolled  despots  as  the  last  Tarquin,  they  could  not,  to  all 
appearance,  have   enjftyed  a   more  ample  authority.     They  make 

i   V(.I.  i,  ]..  531. 


Ill 


laws,  they  wage  wars,  they  govci'ii  the  state,  without  the  smalletsl 
.sign  of  opposition,  or  of  a  conflicting  will,  or  of  a  dissentient 
voice  from  a  single  citizen.  If  the  constitution  had  been  as  it  is 
described  to  us,  such  a  state  of  things  could  not  have  occurred. 
Powers  such  as  those  which  are  attributed  to  the  Senate  and 
people  under  the  kings  never  slumber  :  if  we  had  an  authentic 
history  of  the  period,  and  the  form  of  government  had  been  such 
as  is  represented,  some  traces  of  the  active  exercise,  as  well  as  of 
the  legal  existence,  of  these  powers  would  infallibly  be  visible." 

On  these  observations  we  shall  remark  :  first,  that  they  are 
partly  unfounded  ;  secondly,  that  they  spring  from  a  misconception 
of  the  nature  of  the  government  :  and  thirdly,  from  a  misconcep- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  history. 

That  there  are  no  traces  of  independent  action  in  the  Senate  and 
people  is  not  true.  The  people  compel  the  Senate,  after  the  death 
of  Romulus,  to  restore  the  regal  form  of  government,  which  they 
had  endeavoured  to  abolish.  The  Senate  under  Ancus  Marcius 
obtain  the  privilege  of  deciding  upon  peace  or  war.  A  declaration 
of  war  can  be  made  only  with  the  consent  of  the  majority  of  the 
Senate  ;  ^  and  therefore  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  kings  wage  war 
"  without  the  smallest  sign  of  opposition,"  because  the  majority  of 
votes  had  overborne  the  opposition,  if  there  was  any.  The  kings, 
no  doubt,  also  took  the  opinion  of  the  Senate  as  to  the  making  of 
laws,  though  our  knowledge  of  the  early  Roman  constitution  is  too 
fragmentary  to  enable  us  to  say  whether  they  were  bound  by  that 
opinion.  That  he  acted  without  taking  counsel  is  one  of  the 
charges  on  which  the  tyranny  of  the  second  Tarquin  is  founded. 
Tarquinius  Priscus  is  prevented  from  making  any  alterations  in  the 
constitution  by  the  intervention  of  the  High  Church  and  State  party, 
through  their  mouthpiece,  Attus  Kavius.  It  was,  no  doubt,  under 
considerable  pressure,  though  we  know  not  the  details,  that  Servius 
Tullius  was  obliged  to  j^roduce  his  new  constitution,  which  was,  in 
fact,  a  revolution.  But  to  describe  that  constitution  as  a  "complete 
development  of  the  popular  power"  is  utterly  to  misconceive  it. 
And  how  it  could  have  been  so  complete  a  development  when,  as 
we  are  told  in  the  same  breath,  the  system  which  it  superseded  was 
"  still  more  democratic,"  exceeds  our  comprehension.  But  here 
again  the  critic  misconceives  the  nature  of  the  Comitia  Curiata ; 
which,  though  sufficiently  popular  in  their  origin,  had  become,  in 

1  Liv.  i.  32. 


436 


HISTORY   OF   THE   KINGS    OF   ROME. 


( 


SIR   G.   C.    LEWIS  S   OBJECTIONS. 


437 


the  progress  of  time,  and  through  the  vast  increase  of  the  unenfran- 
chised plebs  in  the  reign  of  Servius  Tullius,  like  many  an  English 
borough,  a  close  corporation.  And,  in  general,  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's 
notion,  that  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  Eoman  kings  were 
very  limited,  seems  to  be  derived  from  the  erroneous  accounts  of 
Dionysius. 

That  "the  history  is  exclusively  concerned  with  the  king's  ex- 
ploits "  is  a  natural  consequence  of  the  nature  of  the  government. 
The  king  reigns  jure  divino;  he  is  the  inaugurated  of  the  gods ; 
everything  is  conducted  under  his  auspices,  and  therefore  every- 
thing is  connected  with  his  person.  The  consuls  play  the  same 
part  in  after-times ;  but  they  rule  only  for  a  year,  whereas  the  kings 
rule  during  their  natural  lives,  and  thus  become  the  only  persons, 
or  almost  the  only  persons,  whom  the  history  mentions.  And  the 
nature  of  the  history  further  tends  to  produce  this  result ;  for  the 
only  historical  writers,  or  rather  annalists,  are  the  Pontifices,  whose 
annals  are  but  brief  and  dry,  and  who,  being  themselves  emanations 
of  a  theocratic  state,  would  naturally  centre  everything  in  their 
divinely-appointed  ruler.  The  Commentaries  of  the  Pontifices  were 
the  only  sources  of  connected  history,  though  there  were  detached 
documents  and  monuments  which  served  to  confirm  particular  facts ; 
and  to  these,  probably,  we  owe  such  stories  as  the  mission  to 
Delphi,  the  rape  of  Lucre tia,  and  others  of  the  like  kind. 

"  The  shutting  of  the  palace  by  Tanaquil  after  the  murder  of 
Tarquinius  Priscus,"  continues  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  "  is  an  event  suffi- 
ciently probable,  if  we  suppose  the  government  to  be  despotic. 
But  it  is  an  incident  unsuited  to  an  elective  kingdom ;  nor  is 
there  any  sufficient  explanation  of  the  means  by  which  Tarquinius 
Superbus  converts  a  limited  royalty  into  a  despotism.  For  such 
a  change  something  more  is  necessary  than  the  mere  will  of  the 
ruler." 

Tanaquil's  act  was  a  mere  ruse  to  gain  time  for  Servius  to  seize 
the  crown  in  the  manner  we  have  already  described ;  ^  and  it  is 
difficult  to  see  why  under  the  circumstances  pretended — namely, 
the  imminent  dissolution  of  the  king,  and  the  necessity  that  ho 
should  be  kept  quiet — the  palace  might  not  have  been  shut  up 
under  any  form  of  monarchy,  as  Servius  in  the  interim  comes 
forth,  and  vicariously  discharges  the  king's  functions. 

Tarquinius  Superbus  had  something  more  than  "  the  mere  will 

1  Above,  p.  24S. 


r 


of  the  ruler"  to  support  him  in  establishing  his  despotism.  For 
first,  as  Servius  had  before  accomplished  his  usurpation,  he  sur- 
rounded himself  with  an  armed  force — "armatis  corpus  circuni- 
saepsit."^  Secondly,  he  had  a  tolerably  strong  party,  as  we  have 
already  seen  by  the  numbers  who  accompanied  him  into  exile. 
These,  of  course,  did  not  wish  to  see  established  the  consular 
republic  projected  by  Servius.  Thirdly,  he  supported  himseli" 
against  his  own  subjects  by  his  alliances  with  the  chiefs  of  the 
Latins :  **  Ut  peregrinis  quoque  opibus  tutior  inter  cives  esset."  ^ 
Fourthly,  he  had  every  reason  to  rely — and  so  his  subjects  might 
have  thought — on  the  aid  of  his  relative,  who  had  a  sort  of  prin- 
cipality at  CoUatia,  and  subsequently  on  that  of  his  son  Sextus,  who 
ruled  at  Gabii.  He  might  have  had  other  aids  which  we  know  not 
of;  but  that  even  these  are  not  a  *'  sufficient  explanation"  of  what 
Tarquin  accomplished  can  be  affirmed  by  no  man  who  possesses  only 
that  knowledge  of  the  state  of  things  at  that  time  which  can  be 
drawn  from  the  extant  sources.  His  overthrow  was  no  doubt 
facilitated  by  the  accidental  circumstance  that  the  army — that  is, 
the  principal  citizens  in  arms — was  assembled  before  Ardea. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  then  proceeds  to  remark  upon  the  Roman  con- 
stitution as  described  by  Dionysius ;  but  we  need  not  examine 
these  observations,  because  the  writer  on  whose  account  they  are 
founded  did  not  understand  the  subject.  ^N'or  need  we  enter  into 
the  opinions  of  Cicero,  Livy,  Sallust,  and  other  writers  respecting 
the  effects  of  the  abolition  of  the  monarchy,  as  they  are  not  con- 
nected with  the  credibility  of  the  history.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  has  a 
singular  idea  that  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  creation  of  such 
an  office  as  that  of  the  Rex  Sacrificulus  if  the  royal  family  was 
expelled  by  a  forcible  revolution,  and  seems  to  conceive  that  it 
rather  indicates  the  gradual  extinction  of  the  regal  power  by  easy 
steps  and  voluntary  concessions.^  Niebuhr  also  conjectured  that 
the  change  from  the  royal  to  the  consular  form  of  government  was 
made  gradually,  and  by  a  mutual  compromise.^  But,  with  all 
deference  to  these  eminent  writers,  we  unhesitatingly  affirm  that 
such  a  revolution  as  that  from  a  tyranny  to  a  republic  efiectcd  by 
slow  degrees,  through  voluntary  concessions  and  mutual  compromise, 
is  contrary  to  all  historical  experience.  Nor  do  we  perceive  what 
consolation  it  would  have  l>een  to  a  deposed  tyrant,  or  what  be 


1  Liv.  i.  40. 
3  Vol.  i.  p.  538. 


2  Ibid. 

'  Hist.  vol.  i.  pp.  518,  538. 


438 


TIISTOKY   OF   THE    KINGS   OF    KOME. 


would  havo  gained  by  the  compromise,  tliat,  after  he  was  sent  about 
his  business,  the  priest  who  performed  the  sacritices  which  belonged 
to  his  dignity  should  be  called  Rox.  We  are,  therefore,  of  opinion 
that  the  old  tradition  is  a  great  deal  more  consistent  and  probable 
than  the  conjectures  of  the  critics  who  find  fault  with  it,  and 
would  either  abolish  or  amend  it.  Livy's  account  of  the  reasons 
for  creating  a  Rex  Sacrificulus,'which  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  has  only 
l)artially  quoted,  is  quite  satisfactory  :  "  Rerum  deinde  divinarum 
cura  habita  :  et  quia  quaidam  publica  sacra  per  ipsos  reges  factitata 
erant,  necubi  desiderium  regum  esset,  regem  sacriticulum  creant. 
Id  sacerdotium  pontifici  siihjecere,  ne  additus  nomini  honos  aliqulJ 
llbertati,  cujus  tunc  x)rima  erat  cura,  oficerety  ^  Whence  it  appears 
that  the  grounds  for  creating  this  priesthood  were  entirely  religious, 
and  not  political ;  in  fact,  a  salve  for  the  tender  consciences  of  the 
more  bigoted  part  of  the  population ;  who,  seeing  in  a  king  the 
elect  of  the  gods,  were  content,  as  such  consciences  frequently  are, 
with  the  word  instead  of  the  thing,  and  accepted  the  shadow  for 
the  substance. 

"  The  detailed  history  of  the  Roman  kings,"  continues  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis,  "represents  them  as  elective,  with  limited  and  not  with 
arbitrary  power,  and  as  the  heads  of  a  constitution  in  which  the 
Senate  and  people  each  bear  an  important  part.  Nevertheless  we 
meet  at  other  times  with  statements  founded  on  a  diflerent  view 
of  the  Roman  royalty.  Thus  Appius  alludes  to  the  plebeians 
having  been  relieved  from  the  taxes  which  they  formerly  paid  to 
the  kings,  and  from  the  bodily  punishments  which  were  inflicted 
upon  them  if  they  did  not  speedily  obey  the  orders  given  them.- 
We  are  likewise  told,  in  reference  to  the  decemviral  legislation, 
that  the  kings  used  to  exercise  an  arbitrary  jurisdiction,  without 
written  laAvs  ;  ^  and  again,  that  their  power  was  irresponsible.^  The 
accounts  moreover  of  the  influence  by  which  Tarquin  was  put  dow^i 
do  not  quite  harmonise  :  thus  at  one  time  we  are  told  that  he 
was  expelled  by  the  heads  of  the  aristocracy,^  at  another  that  the 
people  assisted  the  patricians  in  effecting  his  expulsion."  ^■• 

These  divergent  accounts,  it  will  be  seen,  are  taken  from  Diony- 

»  Lib.  ii.  2.  ^  Dionys.  Hal.  vi.  24.  ^  Ibid.  x.  1. 

4  Dionys.  Hal.  xi.  41.      Tacitus  (Ann.  iii.  26)  considers  the  powers  ol  the 
Eoman  kings  to  have  been  unlimited  till  tlie  reign  of  Servius. 

5  Dionys.  Hal.  viii.  5,  in  the  speech  of  Coriulanus. 
«  Ibid.  V.  65  J  vii.  41  ;  x.  38. 


il 


SIR  o.  c.  lewis's  odjections. 


4:^.9 


Bins,  whose  habit  of  contradicting  himself  we  have  already  exposed  ; 
though  after  all,  perhaps,  the  inconsistencies  here  alleged  may  be  more 
apparent  than  real.  For  granting  that  the  Roman  kings  were  elective, 
and  their  power  in  some  degree  constitutionally  limited — though 
in  this  respect  the  view  of  Dionysius  is  quite  false — yet  neverthe- 
less their  personal  power,  like  that  of  the  consuls  after  them,  and 
especially  in  time  of  war,  was  very  arbitrary  and  extensive,  not- 
withstanding that  it  was  conferred  upon  them  constitutionally — that 
is,  by  the  lex  curiata  de  imj^erio.  Thus  we  find  even  so  popular  a 
king  as  Servius  threatening  with  imprisonment,  and  even  death, 
those  who  should  evade  the  census,^  not  to  mention  the  tyrannous 
acts  of  Tarquin  which  Appius  may  include  in  his  view  of  the  regal 
times.  Contradictory  views  of  the  Roman  constitution  in  the  time 
of  the  kings  often  arise,  as  we  have  before  endeavoured  to  show, 
from  jumbling  togetlier  its  different  periods,  and  regarding,  for 
instance,  the  reign  of  Romulus  as  identical  with  that  of  Ancus 
Marcius  with  regard  to  the  royal  prerogative.  There  is  nothing 
contradictory  in  Dionysius  saying  in  one  place  that  Tarquin  was 
expelled  by  the  heads  of  the  aristocracy,  and  in  another  that  they 
were  assisted  in  that  expulsion  by  the  people.  The  conspiracy  of 
the  patricians  w^as  the  first  and  main  cause  of  Tarquin's  deposition, 
and  therefore,  without  doing  much  violence  to  the  propriety  of 
language,  they  may  be  said  to  have  expelled  him.  That  they  must 
have  been  aided  by  the  people  va  sans  dire,  as  the  French  say. 
Had  the  people  been  adverse,  or  even  perhaps  neutral,  the  con- 
spiracy could  not  have  succeeded  ;  and^  therefore  Brutus  proceeded 
to  the  camp  before  Ardea,  and  procured  their  assistance.  But  this 
army  did  not  contain  the  lowest  class  of  ^>/f^AS-. 

Then  follows  a  paragraph^  containing  a  sort  of  parenthetical 
attack  on  the  history  of  the  regal  period  in  general,  instead  of  the 
accounts  of  the  government,  wdiich  is  the  professed  object  of  the 
section.  But  as  it  only  reiterates  charges  before  urged  more  than 
once,  there  will  be  no  need  to  examine  it. 

*'The  constitutional  accounts  of  the  regal  period,"  continues 
Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  "  are  peculiarly  confused  and  contradictory  :  not 
only  are  the  descriptions  of  the  constitution  inconsistent  with  the 
account  of  the  successive  kings,  but  the  general  characteristics 
attributed  to  the  government  are  inconsistent  w^th  each  other. 
It  has  been  supjioscd  tliat  the  oral   traditions  nf  the  Roman  con- 

'   Eiv.  i.   IL  ^'   V..1.  I.  \K  .',40. 


% 


li 


440 


HISTORY  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  ROME. 


stitiition  were  more  faithful  and  trustworthy  than  the  oral  traditions 
of  particular  events  and  exploits.  It  seems,  however,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  the  traditions  of  the  constitution  were  indistinct  and 
inaccurate  ;  whereas  individual  acts  of  generosity,  courage,  and 
patriotism,  or  of  cruelty  and  oppression,  were  more  likely  to  live  in 
popular  memory." 

It  is  impossible  to  enter  into  these  general  charges,  as  they  are 
not  substantiated  by  producing  instances  and  illustrations.  It  is 
quite  evident,  however,  that  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  takes  his  view  of  the 
Roman  constitution  from  Dionysius,  and  therefore  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  he  cannot  reconcile  it  with  what  he  finds  in  the  Latin 
authors.  That  he  took  his  view  from  iJionysius  we  infer  from  his 
mentioning  *'  descriptions  of  the  constitution ; "  for  Dionysius  is 
the  only  author  who  gives  a  professed  description  of  it.  And  the 
same  thing  appears  from  the  next  page,i  where  he  observes  :  "  The 
Roman  kingdom,  therefore,  was  alternately  conceived  as  deraocratic 
and  despotic.  The  former  is  the  view  taken  by  Dionysius."  Much 
of  the  alleged  confusion,  too,  arises  from  a  confusion  in  the  ideas  of 
modern  critics,  who  as  we  have  before  observed,  confound  together 
the  different  epochs  of  the  regal  period. 

In  the  remainder  of  this  section,  Sir  G.  C.  Lewas  examines  and 
condemns  Xiebuhr's  hypothesis  that  the  curia)  consisted  exclusively 
of  patricians.  With  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  view  of  this  question  we 
entirely  agree,  and  have  indeed  quoted  a  portion  of  what  he  here 
says,  by  way  of  confirming  our  opinion.  The  last  section  of  this 
chapter  and  volume  is  devoted  to  the  topography  of  Rome  under 
the  kings  ;  into  which  subject  we  need  not  enter. 

1  P.  541. 


TIIK    END. 


LONDON  :    R,    tLAV,    SON.    AND   TAYLOU,    I'KlNTERb 


.r 


u 


I 


( 


f 


*€ 


\ 


I"' 

i: 


m 


if: 


^^^' 


^i' 


I 


aj/rrtE  do  mr 


S." 


"^M^--'-  -fiK 


)f 


M 


pp. 


#FT 


1  /•  ' 

^H 

H^^^S^'^ 

^^^^^H^^r^ 

i?' 

t:|' 


# 


I 


'-,Hf 


P    ^ 


If 


■•*  y-s 


.ii* 


-i^:..  .»-.;^».:.'«t'«;w.i«Sa^**'xi 


?*; 


'"# 


fl,« 


w 

Li 

"fT 

^/a 

i  NImBIH 

f 

1^  V''-  ^'4  ■' '" ' 

If    ^ " 

PI'V*"' 

■^ 

Kl 

w^ 

B9i 


